Looking at the table, the differences in predictive power are small enough that it's not obvious they aren't due to chance alone; there needs to be some calculation that shows that the differences are meaningful validating the claim that the alternative methods actually extract more information than Elo does. Perhaps there is enough inherent randomness in Chess that even simple predictive models can extract most of the systematics so that what remains after Elo is mostly noise?
First of all, money is constantly being created and destroyed. Central banks print bills, burn old bills, inject cash into the economy by making short-term loans to banks, et cetera.
Secondly, goods both tangible and intangible are constantly being created, and these have value too. Economics is not a zero-sum games because both sides benefit from a voluntary exchange (otherwise they wouldn't do it!). When I give the store $10 and they give me a book we are both better off -- I'll enjoy reading the book more than having the $10 in my pocket. The owner of the store will enjoy the $10 more than the book (for example, he could use part of the $10 to buy lunch). Yes, money was conserved in this transaction (money-wise this was a "zero-sum interaction") -- yet looking only at the money misses the point. This exchange isn't simply me "losing" $10, and the store owner "gaining" $10. Rather, because owning the book has different value to both of us, we both gained: I gained the difference ((enjoyment of book + resale value of book) - $10). The owner gained the difference ($10 - costs of getting, storing and selling the book).
They used the software to *use* the locked-down content, not to violate the copyright, therefore the software is not a circumvention tool (for violating copyright) and can be distributed without breaching the DMCA.
For the anti-trafficking provision what matters is the potential uses of the tool. That GE as the initial develper used the tools for legitimate purposes is beside the point -- as long as the tools can be used to circumvent copyright protection, they fall under the no-trafficking prohibition. For example, it is perfectly legal to copy the works of William Shakespeare. But it is not legal to break copy-protection on specific editions of his works, even for the purpose of making legal copies.
Second, in the US the legal rule is that running software involves copying (copying the binary from storage media to RAM) and therefore requires specific authorization from the copyright owner. In other words, there exist a kind of copyrighted work where "using" the content inheretly involves copying. I think the legal rule is wrong, but as long as it stands you cannot separate "using" and "copying".
Note that in this case GE is a large company which has within it the know-how to break copy protection. But even if GE was within their rights to circumvent the dongles, it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else -- even if the present ruling stands and the recipient would be allowed to break the protections themselves.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies. So this ruling actually means basically nothing to individuals, and very little to companies (except for those that have in-house engineers capable of reinventing the wheel).
At the bottom there's no way for the courts to fix the DMCA, since it's likely within Congress's powers to enact and it's not up to the courts to second-guess Congress about the policy choices – no matter how bad they were. The only way to fix the DMCA is for Congress to fix it.
Business and private people have had years to evaluate SP3 and plan for its deployment, or in the alternative to switch to other operating systems. The summary seems to assume an implied responsibility of Microsoft to support SP2 simply because the public likes it.
It is true that had XP+SP2 been free software, there would be an option of obtaining patches and support from other vendors, but this is not a complaint against Microsoft but rather against those that chose to use Microsoft's software.
In fact, the correction is about 2% (from 0.8768(69) fm to 0.84184(67)fm; one femtometer is 10^{-15} metres). Yes, the absolute magnitude of the difference is small compared to everyday things, but that's meaningless. More importantly, this difference is more than 5 standard deviations, so this is unlikely to have happened by chance.
Mathematics is the primary language by which physicists describe the world around us. Discussing post-16th century physics in any other terms is like discussing poetry purely by means of interpretive dance.
This is a symptom of the "winner gets the spoils" approach to administration in the US. Every administration is supposed to set new policy in every direction, which comes from the system where every new President appoints his people to jobs all over the executive. This frequent revision of policy makes sense for short-term issues, especially ones central to the election (say DOJ anti-drug projects or FTC business regulations) but is an absurd way to manage scientific and engineering projects which naturally have timescales much greater than 4 years. Having every president retask NASA (or the agency of your choice) leads to enormous waste as projects are cancelled and new projects are started so they can be cancelled by the next administration.
The answer, of course, is that I don't have any cars/warranties in my name. Whatever he said would have been wrong, but I knew that.
Yes, the magic of this style of mass marketing is that calling many people is cheap and once in a while you get lucky. You call random people with the byline "I'm calling you about your xxx that is yyy". Most of them don't own an xxx, or yyy is wrong for them, and they ignore you. But a few people will match the precise situation you're angling for. They will then assume that you know about their particular situation and want to help with it, making them more likely to listen to whatever you are selling.
There's an important point to the re-entry process, separate from the asteroid sample: the craft will be coming at interplanetary speed (about escape velocity from Earth) -- is much faster than typical re-entries from Earth-orbit. Seeing if the heat-shielding technology will work is important for future missions around the solar system.
Under US Copyright law, damage awards are not necessarily connected to actual damages. The court is given a range (the range depends on whether the infringement is "wilful"), and may assign any damages it considers just from that range -- the plaintiff doesn't have to prove their actual damages. These statutory damages are figured out per act of infringement and the top of the range can be $150,000. To get the $1.5T figure the RIAA is arguing that LimeWire has contributed to 10M cases of infringement, and should be forced to pay the maximum penalty of $150K per. According to US law they are free to make this claim, but the court doesn't have to accept it.
There is an argument that too wide a disparity between the actual damages (no more than $0.20 per downloaded song) and the damage award (say, the $9000 per download that has been awarded in a particular file-sharing case) might violate the Due Process Clause of the (14th Amendment to) the Constitution, but there is no definite Supreme Court precedent on that.
Can anyone tell me why someone wouldn't want the.xxx domain to happen? What possible downside is there to it?
Because the next thing you know there will be government rules requiring certain content to only be located at.xxx, depending on the whims of the reigning censor-in-chief. Also, because companies will register this in addition to their.com address rather than instead of it (would NBC give up NBC.com if we have NBC.tv ?)
I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes...).
You are assuming that the market itself is not subdivided, that is that Hulu and TV broadcast over radio or cable are alternatives. In my experience there are two very different audiences -- those that prefer to watch a traditional TV station and get a mix of shows, and those that prefer to choose their programs a-la-carte over the internet. My sense is that allowing a-la-carte internet broadcast will not significantly lessen the demand for traditional broadcast viewing of the same shows in the medium term (in the long term traditional TV stations are dead, but that isn't the issue). Moreover, the traditional stations are usually not set up to exploit the internet rights. Both of these indicate that a-la-carte internet rights aren't worth much to the traditional stations so excluding these from the license wouldn't reduce the fees much.
On the other hand, keeping the world-wide a-la-carte internet rights not divided would make them much more valuable. First, this will simplify the life of stations like Hulu (e.g. this would obviate the need for location-based filtering), thus reducing their costs. Second, it will improve their services, especially for people who travel. I can travel with my DVD collection -- I'd like to travel with a Hulu subscription too.
The only problem with world-wide license is a desire for price discrimination -- if the studios think they can get subscribers in "rich countries" to pay more for the same service. But this doesn't make sense for internet broadcast, which mainly targets those who are well-off.
The real news we are all waiting for is for Hulu to start offering world-wide viewing.
In the pre-internet world where movies and TV programs were received by radio or cable or seen in a theater or rented on a videocasette it made sense for the rights holder to subdivide the rights based on location -- to license separately in each country. But this makes no sense for internet broadcast. You would think that in the future rights owners would exclude internet rights from the licenses which are exclusive in a geographical region (thus allowing services like Hulu to license world-wide internet rights), but this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the internet broadcast rights are included in the country-specific deals, which generally means that potential viewers outside the US get no service.
By the way -- this is why I feel no compunction about downloading "pirated" versions of shows that are not available in my country. If the studio refuses to sell me a product, they can't complain when I don't pay for it...
It's easier to explain the two-dimensional version, that is the version about surfaces. A mathematical surface is a kind of quilt: it's what you get from stitching together patches, each of which looks like a small piece of the plane. Just like with the quilt, if you bend or deform the surface it still is the same surface. Surfaces are completely "floppy".
Now, most real-life quilts are rectangular and have a boundary where they end, but you can also "close" the quilt by stitching the boundary back onto itself -- what you get is a "closed" surface. For example, you can stitch all the boundary together and get a sphere. Or you can stitch opposite sides together and get a "torus" -- the surface of a doughnut. You can also make more complicated quilts, which look like the joining of several doughnuts, i.e. a doughnut with several holes.
Next, one way that the sphere and doughnut-surface differ is that the latter has a hole. The way we express this is by looping a closed piece of string along the surface. With the sphere you can always slide the piece of string off the surface (we say that the sphere is "simply connected"), but with the torus you can run a loop of string along it in such a way that no deformation will allow you to take it off (we say the doughnut is "multiply connected").
Finally, the "2d Poincare conjecture" is the statement that the only simply connected closed 2d surface is the sphere. In other words, if you can't link a loop with your closed quilt then your quilt can be deformed to be a round sphere. A strong version of this was proved by Poincare, among others.
Now for the real "Poincare Conjecture" that was proved by Perelman, replace "2d" by "3d", so the quilt comes from stitching little cubes instead of little squares. The "closed and simply connected" assumptions are the same, and the conclusion is that the quilt is, up to deformation, the 3d sphere. It's much harder to visualize since now the quilt may not fit into regular 3d space. For example, the 3d sphere is what you get by stitching the whole boundary of the 3d cube together into one point (recall how we got a 2d sphere!) -- which is not something that fits into ordinary 3d space.
It seems that the reason for the EU's existence is as an anti-democratic force in Europe. Given the scant regard the EU has for democracy and accountability my guess is that the EU's executive will simply ignore this vote, just like they ignored the no votes on the European Constitution, and just like they started implementing the Lisbon Treaty before it was ratified.
are like lawyers writing code -- attempting to go beyond their field of expertise. division of labour rocks. It's one reason our modern world is so productive. This isn't to say that an individual programmer might have legal training, or that an individual lawyer might not also know how to program. But it means that you'll get better results by doing what you are good at and enlisting the help of others who are good at what they do.
Your comment about Disney is disingenuous, as Treasure Island is in the public domain while Toy Story is not.
My comment was carefully considered. Everyone knows that Treasure Island was in the public domain, while "Toy Story" currently is not -- but will "Toy Story" ever reach the public doamin? Disney has aggressively lobbied Congress to extend copyright indefinitely (by winning a definite increment each time), so that their own creations never reach the public domain. It should therefore be clear what my comment actually is about: the hypocrisy of using the public domain but refusing to contribute to it.
PS: Mozart was 11 when he wrote his early piano concertos.
Art has always built on ideas and elements from the work of previous artists. Mozart's first four piano concertos are arrangements of piano solo movements written by other composers. Liszt arranged Beethoven's symphonies for piano solo and two pianos. Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original. Rachmaninov wrote a famous "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini". Beethoven's "Wellington" Symphony incorporates "God save the King". The cover art to Terry Pratchett's book "Night Watch" adapts Rembrandt's famous painting. Card's "Alvin Gentry" series retells the story of the Book of Mormon.
The question has always been one of degree and certainly has been culturally dependent. What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own) wasn't acceptable for Liszt (his piano arrangements were published as such, not as entirely original pieces). Was is acceptable for Disney (adapting Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" to a live-action film) isn't acceptable for you and me (adapting Disney's "Toy Story" into a book).
With regard to the case at hand, you'd have to see how much of the work is adapted, and whether this kind of adaptation is normal for the relevant genre.
I think the signal-to-noise ratio matters more than the luminosity here. The signal due to "artifical lights on the surface of an extrasolar planet on its night side" will surely be swamped by simple fluctuations in the output of the star. IANAAstrophysicist but my guess is that the radio background from the sun is far weaker than the visible light background .
Yes, but the assumption was that civilizations stopped broadcasting into space because they ceased to exist.
Was it really? It doesn't sound credible to assume that ET civilisations would transmit strong radio signals throughout their existence. The question always was about the time period between discovery of radio and the transition to a more advanced technology.
There have been several attempts at sending radio messages into space specifically for communication purposes. Whether we keep that up or not is independent of our use of radio for intraplanentary communications.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the table, the differences in predictive power are small enough that it's not obvious they aren't due to chance alone; there needs to be some calculation that shows that the differences are meaningful validating the claim that the alternative methods actually extract more information than Elo does. Perhaps there is enough inherent randomness in Chess that even simple predictive models can extract most of the systematics so that what remains after Elo is mostly noise?
First of all, money is constantly being created and destroyed. Central banks print bills, burn old bills, inject cash into the economy by making short-term loans to banks, et cetera.
Secondly, goods both tangible and intangible are constantly being created, and these have value too. Economics is not a zero-sum games because both sides benefit from a voluntary exchange (otherwise they wouldn't do it!). When I give the store $10 and they give me a book we are both better off -- I'll enjoy reading the book more than having the $10 in my pocket. The owner of the store will enjoy the $10 more than the book (for example, he could use part of the $10 to buy lunch). Yes, money was conserved in this transaction (money-wise this was a "zero-sum interaction") -- yet looking only at the money misses the point. This exchange isn't simply me "losing" $10, and the store owner "gaining" $10. Rather, because owning the book has different value to both of us, we both gained: I gained the difference ((enjoyment of book + resale value of book) - $10). The owner gained the difference ($10 - costs of getting, storing and selling the book).
For the anti-trafficking provision what matters is the potential uses of the tool. That GE as the initial develper used the tools for legitimate purposes is beside the point -- as long as the tools can be used to circumvent copyright protection, they fall under the no-trafficking prohibition. For example, it is perfectly legal to copy the works of William Shakespeare. But it is not legal to break copy-protection on specific editions of his works, even for the purpose of making legal copies. Second, in the US the legal rule is that running software involves copying (copying the binary from storage media to RAM) and therefore requires specific authorization from the copyright owner. In other words, there exist a kind of copyrighted work where "using" the content inheretly involves copying. I think the legal rule is wrong, but as long as it stands you cannot separate "using" and "copying".
Note that in this case GE is a large company which has within it the know-how to break copy protection. But even if GE was within their rights to circumvent the dongles, it would still be illegal for them to give the software solution to anyone else -- even if the present ruling stands and the recipient would be allowed to break the protections themselves.
The real problem with the DMCA is that it criminalizes "trafficking" in anti-circumvention technology, even when both the provider and the recipient intend to make legal copies. So this ruling actually means basically nothing to individuals, and very little to companies (except for those that have in-house engineers capable of reinventing the wheel).
At the bottom there's no way for the courts to fix the DMCA, since it's likely within Congress's powers to enact and it's not up to the courts to second-guess Congress about the policy choices – no matter how bad they were. The only way to fix the DMCA is for Congress to fix it.
Business and private people have had years to evaluate SP3 and plan for its deployment, or in the alternative to switch to other operating systems. The summary seems to assume an implied responsibility of Microsoft to support SP2 simply because the public likes it.
It is true that had XP+SP2 been free software, there would be an option of obtaining patches and support from other vendors, but this is not a complaint against Microsoft but rather against those that chose to use Microsoft's software.
In fact, the correction is about 2% (from 0.8768(69) fm to 0.84184(67)fm; one femtometer is 10^{-15} metres). Yes, the absolute magnitude of the difference is small compared to everyday things, but that's meaningless. More importantly, this difference is more than 5 standard deviations, so this is unlikely to have happened by chance.
Mathematics is the primary language by which physicists describe the world around us. Discussing post-16th century physics in any other terms is like discussing poetry purely by means of interpretive dance.
This is a symptom of the "winner gets the spoils" approach to administration in the US. Every administration is supposed to set new policy in every direction, which comes from the system where every new President appoints his people to jobs all over the executive. This frequent revision of policy makes sense for short-term issues, especially ones central to the election (say DOJ anti-drug projects or FTC business regulations) but is an absurd way to manage scientific and engineering projects which naturally have timescales much greater than 4 years. Having every president retask NASA (or the agency of your choice) leads to enormous waste as projects are cancelled and new projects are started so they can be cancelled by the next administration.
Yes, the magic of this style of mass marketing is that calling many people is cheap and once in a while you get lucky. You call random people with the byline "I'm calling you about your xxx that is yyy". Most of them don't own an xxx, or yyy is wrong for them, and they ignore you. But a few people will match the precise situation you're angling for. They will then assume that you know about their particular situation and want to help with it, making them more likely to listen to whatever you are selling.
There's an important point to the re-entry process, separate from the asteroid sample: the craft will be coming at interplanetary speed (about escape velocity from Earth) -- is much faster than typical re-entries from Earth-orbit. Seeing if the heat-shielding technology will work is important for future missions around the solar system.
Under US Copyright law, damage awards are not necessarily connected to actual damages. The court is given a range (the range depends on whether the infringement is "wilful"), and may assign any damages it considers just from that range -- the plaintiff doesn't have to prove their actual damages. These statutory damages are figured out per act of infringement and the top of the range can be $150,000. To get the $1.5T figure the RIAA is arguing that LimeWire has contributed to 10M cases of infringement, and should be forced to pay the maximum penalty of $150K per. According to US law they are free to make this claim, but the court doesn't have to accept it. There is an argument that too wide a disparity between the actual damages (no more than $0.20 per downloaded song) and the damage award (say, the $9000 per download that has been awarded in a particular file-sharing case) might violate the Due Process Clause of the (14th Amendment to) the Constitution, but there is no definite Supreme Court precedent on that.
Because the next thing you know there will be government rules requiring certain content to only be located at .xxx, depending on the whims of the reigning censor-in-chief. Also, because companies will register this in addition to their .com address rather than instead of it (would NBC give up NBC.com if we have NBC.tv ?)
I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes ...).
You are assuming that the market itself is not subdivided, that is that Hulu and TV broadcast over radio or cable are alternatives. In my experience there are two very different audiences -- those that prefer to watch a traditional TV station and get a mix of shows, and those that prefer to choose their programs a-la-carte over the internet. My sense is that allowing a-la-carte internet broadcast will not significantly lessen the demand for traditional broadcast viewing of the same shows in the medium term (in the long term traditional TV stations are dead, but that isn't the issue). Moreover, the traditional stations are usually not set up to exploit the internet rights. Both of these indicate that a-la-carte internet rights aren't worth much to the traditional stations so excluding these from the license wouldn't reduce the fees much.
On the other hand, keeping the world-wide a-la-carte internet rights not divided would make them much more valuable. First, this will simplify the life of stations like Hulu (e.g. this would obviate the need for location-based filtering), thus reducing their costs. Second, it will improve their services, especially for people who travel. I can travel with my DVD collection -- I'd like to travel with a Hulu subscription too.
The only problem with world-wide license is a desire for price discrimination -- if the studios think they can get subscribers in "rich countries" to pay more for the same service. But this doesn't make sense for internet broadcast, which mainly targets those who are well-off.
The real news we are all waiting for is for Hulu to start offering world-wide viewing.
In the pre-internet world where movies and TV programs were received by radio or cable or seen in a theater or rented on a videocasette it made sense for the rights holder to subdivide the rights based on location -- to license separately in each country. But this makes no sense for internet broadcast. You would think that in the future rights owners would exclude internet rights from the licenses which are exclusive in a geographical region (thus allowing services like Hulu to license world-wide internet rights), but this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, the internet broadcast rights are included in the country-specific deals, which generally means that potential viewers outside the US get no service.
By the way -- this is why I feel no compunction about downloading "pirated" versions of shows that are not available in my country. If the studio refuses to sell me a product, they can't complain when I don't pay for it ...
It's easier to explain the two-dimensional version, that is the version about surfaces. A mathematical surface is a kind of quilt: it's what you get from stitching together patches, each of which looks like a small piece of the plane. Just like with the quilt, if you bend or deform the surface it still is the same surface. Surfaces are completely "floppy".
Now, most real-life quilts are rectangular and have a boundary where they end, but you can also "close" the quilt by stitching the boundary back onto itself -- what you get is a "closed" surface. For example, you can stitch all the boundary together and get a sphere. Or you can stitch opposite sides together and get a "torus" -- the surface of a doughnut. You can also make more complicated quilts, which look like the joining of several doughnuts, i.e. a doughnut with several holes.
Next, one way that the sphere and doughnut-surface differ is that the latter has a hole. The way we express this is by looping a closed piece of string along the surface. With the sphere you can always slide the piece of string off the surface (we say that the sphere is "simply connected"), but with the torus you can run a loop of string along it in such a way that no deformation will allow you to take it off (we say the doughnut is "multiply connected").
Finally, the "2d Poincare conjecture" is the statement that the only simply connected closed 2d surface is the sphere. In other words, if you can't link a loop with your closed quilt then your quilt can be deformed to be a round sphere. A strong version of this was proved by Poincare, among others.
Now for the real "Poincare Conjecture" that was proved by Perelman, replace "2d" by "3d", so the quilt comes from stitching little cubes instead of little squares. The "closed and simply connected" assumptions are the same, and the conclusion is that the quilt is, up to deformation, the 3d sphere. It's much harder to visualize since now the quilt may not fit into regular 3d space. For example, the 3d sphere is what you get by stitching the whole boundary of the 3d cube together into one point (recall how we got a 2d sphere!) -- which is not something that fits into ordinary 3d space.
It seems that the reason for the EU's existence is as an anti-democratic force in Europe. Given the scant regard the EU has for democracy and accountability my guess is that the EU's executive will simply ignore this vote, just like they ignored the no votes on the European Constitution, and just like they started implementing the Lisbon Treaty before it was ratified.
are like lawyers writing code -- attempting to go beyond their field of expertise. division of labour rocks. It's one reason our modern world is so productive. This isn't to say that an individual programmer might have legal training, or that an individual lawyer might not also know how to program. But it means that you'll get better results by doing what you are good at and enlisting the help of others who are good at what they do.
My comment was carefully considered. Everyone knows that Treasure Island was in the public domain, while "Toy Story" currently is not -- but will "Toy Story" ever reach the public doamin? Disney has aggressively lobbied Congress to extend copyright indefinitely (by winning a definite increment each time), so that their own creations never reach the public domain. It should therefore be clear what my comment actually is about: the hypocrisy of using the public domain but refusing to contribute to it. PS: Mozart was 11 when he wrote his early piano concertos.
Art has always built on ideas and elements from the work of previous artists. Mozart's first four piano concertos are arrangements of piano solo movements written by other composers. Liszt arranged Beethoven's symphonies for piano solo and two pianos. Most of Shakespeare's plots and characters are not original. Rachmaninov wrote a famous "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini". Beethoven's "Wellington" Symphony incorporates "God save the King". The cover art to Terry Pratchett's book "Night Watch" adapts Rembrandt's famous painting. Card's "Alvin Gentry" series retells the story of the Book of Mormon.
The question has always been one of degree and certainly has been culturally dependent. What was acceptable for Mozart (republishing work by others as his own) wasn't acceptable for Liszt (his piano arrangements were published as such, not as entirely original pieces). Was is acceptable for Disney (adapting Stevenson's book "Treasure Island" to a live-action film) isn't acceptable for you and me (adapting Disney's "Toy Story" into a book).
With regard to the case at hand, you'd have to see how much of the work is adapted, and whether this kind of adaptation is normal for the relevant genre.
Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec. Now what about the patents? the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends?
If you can't implement the standard, what good will it do you to be able to read it?
I think the signal-to-noise ratio matters more than the luminosity here. The signal due to "artifical lights on the surface of an extrasolar planet on its night side" will surely be swamped by simple fluctuations in the output of the star. IANAAstrophysicist but my guess is that the radio background from the sun is far weaker than the visible light background .
This depends on whether we decide to continue to send radio signals to space deliberately even after we don't need to do it incidentally.
Was it really? It doesn't sound credible to assume that ET civilisations would transmit strong radio signals throughout their existence. The question always was about the time period between discovery of radio and the transition to a more advanced technology.
There have been several attempts at sending radio messages into space specifically for communication purposes. Whether we keep that up or not is independent of our use of radio for intraplanentary communications.