Einstein said everything was relative and that your perception depends on your point of view.
Velocity is relative, but acceleration isn't relative. Rotation involves acceleration. So it isn't equivalent to say that X rotates around Y is the same as Y rotates around X. (Hypothetical example: consider a universe empty except for a single planet which is rotating. What does it mean to say it's rotating, without reference to background stars? Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates.)
On a funny note Wikipedia says:
"is the astronomical theory that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun is STATIONARY and at the center of the universe. "
I don't see what's funny? It's perfectly correct that this is what heliocentrism means. And yes, it still wasn't correct - but the point is it was a vast improvement over geocentrism. The Wikipedia article already covers this, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science .
If you choose not to answer questions during police interviews
So the "You do not have to say anything" only applies to police interviews (when the person will have access to a lawyer)? And doesn't at all apply when they're arrested and read this information?
It's an honest question - I always assumed that it meant from that point onwards, i.e., including when the person has yet to have a lawyer.
It probably won't be resolved until someone has their improperly collected DNA used against them in a court.
No, it already was resolved, by European courts ruling the retention of DNA to be illegal. What's changed? Nothing.
In the meantime, the issue is discussed freely in the media, Parliament, the Lords and in Europe.
Oh that's okay then, it can be "discussed". What good does that do?
This is not an isolated case either - from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8434713.stm , "The average removal rate is only 22%, with six forces not removing any."
I have no idea if the OP's comparison to the country he lives in his valid, but I'll take the opinion of someone who's lived in both countries, over you.
There are two options here, either you're so much cleverer than everyone else who has failed to spot / understand the potential problems with the cameras, or everybody else knows that they are so useless that their only use is to deter chavs.
If they're so useless, what's the point in having them? And evidence that they reduce crime by deterrence? And where do you get the idea that no one other than the OP disagrees with them?
Lying to the police is a serious crime in the UK, and can get you years in prison, even if you are innocent of any other crime. It's a shame it's not a two way thing. (And before anyone points it out, this wouldn't include undercover cases - by cases a police officer makes himself known as such, and lies to the public.)
Indeed. It's probably because the media honestly think the mobile market consists of Apple and Google (despite them actually being two of the smallest players, way behind LG and Motorola). I suppose we should be thankful they cover LG at all...
Citation please? (And please, not one that only looks at "app" stores - the point is that we aren't restricted to an "app" store.) Plenty of apps for my phone. I can also use any Java application too - if you see more things specifically written for the Iphone, it's only because they've had to accommodate the awkward player that can't handle 15 year old technologies.
But I would argue that Symbian can hardly be included in the list since it's not really a part of the smartphone application race in any significant way.
Not a smartphone? What definition of "smartphone" are you using that includes phones like the Iphones (can't even multitask; first versions couldn't even copy and paste for heaven's sake - did they fix that yet?), but doesn't include Symbian?
The difference between Symbian and all other competitors on the list is, most people buy a phone that happens to have Symbian running it, whereas for Android or the iPhone or Pre or WM, people buy a device specifically because it runs that OS.
And your evidence for this wild speculation? And why does it matter anyway? People buy it because Nokia make good phones - hardware is just as important.
We should see Nokia devices start to ship with Android in a year or two, once they give up the alternate path they are taking now.
Citation please? And even if they did, Nokia will still be the market leader, both in phones, and so-called "smartphones". The OP was talking about ""smartphone" players", and then proceeded to list companies, not operating system. It doesn't matter whether Nokia use their own OS or someone else's, they're still a major smartphone player - the biggest, in fact.
But then, the OP also missed a whole load of other smartphone players too, such as LG (as covered in this article) and Motorola, both of whom have more marketshare than Apple, by far.
*yawn* Pro-Apple tactic #434 - redefine "market share" to mean something else.
Not to mention that you confuse yourself. If you want to say that it's only the US market that matters (obviously I'm irrelevant, here in the UK), that's all very well, but you start off by saying they're not a global player. Which is it? Globally, Nokia are the market leader, by far. Globally, Apple are behind Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, and RIM.
But even if we're talking only of the US, let's see some citations on market share for the entire mobile market (i.e., not some ill-defined "smartphone" market which artifically resticts the market to the Iphone and a few other handpicked devices)?
You won't for instance ever see a Nokia featured in American TV or films.
So Nokia don't use product placement as advertising on American TV. Big deal. Maybe they don't need to.
Mindshare is powerfull stuff.
By "Mindshare", you mean "What I think is best". Well I think different to you.
Indeed - the equivalent Apple story would be about a mere rumour of a new phone, based on some idle speculation on a non-notable blog, claiming he'd noticed Apple were ordering in some new electronic equipment from some far off country...
And we'd get that story posted everyday, for the next three months.
LG have vastly more market share in the phone market than Apple - yet when was the last time we had a story on them? Compared with daily ones for the Iphone...
but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits
Leaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?
If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.
If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...
I wonder if they can just release the engine on its own, and leave ppl to find the content from the original (or maybe attract people to develop new material).
That's an interesting point (and why you sometimes get "peppercorn" payments, I believe).
I'll remember that next time someone tries to claim an EULA, or indeed any terms of service or "you agree to blah", is a valid contract. Even if it's presented before purchase, do you see any payment being given to the user?
Yes, he was paid for his work. That proves my point.
The sculptor was a veteran.
And?
And why is it fair that the USPS (not the US government ya know) pocketed at least $5M in profit without a single royalty to the sculptor?
Because they provided a service? Again, why is it fair that he gets paid for other people's work, when he was already paid for the work he did? If he didn't think that $700,000 was enough money (!), he could have not taken the job. I don't see how it being funded by the people makes it any different.
Do you have a source for any of your claims?
Oh, and if you quote my post in reply, I demand royalties.
PS - disagreeing with a post doesn't make it a "troll". Learn to mod.
Well sure, if you gave away food, and then they were ill because of your actions, of course it's fair that you are liable. But that's not analogous to this situation.
It would be more like if you gave away some free kitchen utensils, which they used to then make food for a third person. Should you, and not they, be liable for that? If not, why is it any different when someone uses your network to do things they shouldn't?
First: this law is in the UK, not the US, so your whole string of constitutional references is pretty irrelevant.
If the law is justified on the basis that we don't have any of those freedoms that the US has, then that in itself is a reason to be worried about this law. Hardly a ringing endorsement for it.
As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.
Blimey, if you come round to my house, no tea and biscuits for you!
Because the authors allow you to do so.
Yes, the authors, not the Government. So why is it any different about what I do with my network?
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?
Can the analogies get any worse? No one is talking about who pays for it - obviously the person should still pay his ISP. The question is liability for copyright infringement.
Also see all the pics on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial (not to mention any other pictures of memorials, buildings, and so on). Whilst Wikipedia could have a better chance of claiming fair use (as they're not there for profit), at the moment the images are tagged as public domain, or whatever the author of the photo chose to release them as. This is important for cases where the pages might be used for profit or commercial use in general (as is allowed by the free licences that Wikipedia is released under, of course)
Hopefully Wikipedia will stick their finger up at suggestions for the photos to be removed.
Indeed, and furthermore, I believe it's the case that all works produced by the US Government are explicitly released into the public domain.
And it's not as if this is something he built himself. Why does the designer own the copyright, and not the people who constructed it? God knows what kind of contract they must have had...
It's nice to know all those people died, so that other people could have the "freedom" to grow old making money for doing nothing.
Indeed, but even as far as innocence or not, apparently she was 15 years old - at that age, we deem someone incapable of being informed or capable enough to make decisions such as having sex, taking a photo of themselves say topless, buying a lottery ticket, having a drink, smoking a cigarette. In some places, they can't do that for years later.
But apparently, at 15 they're expected to fully understand the ins and outs of copyright law, as well as being fully aware and liable for damages.
Yes, there is a good reason for punishing children who commit criminal offences, where they are a danger to society. But piracy is a civil issue. Children can't even enter legal contracts - should they be liable under civil legal issues?
(And don't be too sure that everyone knows the law, even adults, and even musicians - e.g., UK artists Lily Allen who, after accusing pirates of being thieves, was revealed to have been illegally distributing other artists' works in order to promote her own commercial material, in the form of mix tapes, and then defended it with "i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then" - what 15 year old has a knowledge of the music industry?)
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein said everything was relative and that your perception depends on your point of view.
Velocity is relative, but acceleration isn't relative. Rotation involves acceleration. So it isn't equivalent to say that X rotates around Y is the same as Y rotates around X. (Hypothetical example: consider a universe empty except for a single planet which is rotating. What does it mean to say it's rotating, without reference to background stars? Is it equivalent to a model where we say the planet doesn't rotate? No - we could see the difference in a centrifugal force causing the planet to bulge as it rotates.)
On a funny note Wikipedia says:
"is the astronomical theory that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun and that the Sun is STATIONARY and at the center of the universe. "
I don't see what's funny? It's perfectly correct that this is what heliocentrism means. And yes, it still wasn't correct - but the point is it was a vast improvement over geocentrism. The Wikipedia article already covers this, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science .
If you choose not to answer questions during police interviews
So the "You do not have to say anything" only applies to police interviews (when the person will have access to a lawyer)? And doesn't at all apply when they're arrested and read this information?
It's an honest question - I always assumed that it meant from that point onwards, i.e., including when the person has yet to have a lawyer.
It probably won't be resolved until someone has their improperly collected DNA used against them in a court.
No, it already was resolved, by European courts ruling the retention of DNA to be illegal. What's changed? Nothing.
In the meantime, the issue is discussed freely in the media, Parliament, the Lords and in Europe.
Oh that's okay then, it can be "discussed". What good does that do?
This is not an isolated case either - from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8434713.stm , "The average removal rate is only 22%, with six forces not removing any."
I have no idea if the OP's comparison to the country he lives in his valid, but I'll take the opinion of someone who's lived in both countries, over you.
There are two options here, either you're so much cleverer than everyone else who has failed to spot / understand the potential problems with the cameras, or everybody else knows that they are so useless that their only use is to deter chavs.
If they're so useless, what's the point in having them? And evidence that they reduce crime by deterrence? And where do you get the idea that no one other than the OP disagrees with them?
Lying to the police is a serious crime in the UK, and can get you years in prison, even if you are innocent of any other crime. It's a shame it's not a two way thing. (And before anyone points it out, this wouldn't include undercover cases - by cases a police officer makes himself known as such, and lies to the public.)
Indeed. It's probably because the media honestly think the mobile market consists of Apple and Google (despite them actually being two of the smallest players, way behind LG and Motorola). I suppose we should be thankful they cover LG at all...
Almost no-one is writing Symbian applications
Citation please? (And please, not one that only looks at "app" stores - the point is that we aren't restricted to an "app" store.) Plenty of apps for my phone. I can also use any Java application too - if you see more things specifically written for the Iphone, it's only because they've had to accommodate the awkward player that can't handle 15 year old technologies.
But I would argue that Symbian can hardly be included in the list since it's not really a part of the smartphone application race in any significant way.
Not a smartphone? What definition of "smartphone" are you using that includes phones like the Iphones (can't even multitask; first versions couldn't even copy and paste for heaven's sake - did they fix that yet?), but doesn't include Symbian?
The difference between Symbian and all other competitors on the list is, most people buy a phone that happens to have Symbian running it, whereas for Android or the iPhone or Pre or WM, people buy a device specifically because it runs that OS.
And your evidence for this wild speculation? And why does it matter anyway? People buy it because Nokia make good phones - hardware is just as important.
We should see Nokia devices start to ship with Android in a year or two, once they give up the alternate path they are taking now.
Citation please? And even if they did, Nokia will still be the market leader, both in phones, and so-called "smartphones". The OP was talking about ""smartphone" players", and then proceeded to list companies, not operating system. It doesn't matter whether Nokia use their own OS or someone else's, they're still a major smartphone player - the biggest, in fact.
But then, the OP also missed a whole load of other smartphone players too, such as LG (as covered in this article) and Motorola, both of whom have more marketshare than Apple, by far.
*yawn* Pro-Apple tactic #434 - redefine "market share" to mean something else.
Not to mention that you confuse yourself. If you want to say that it's only the US market that matters (obviously I'm irrelevant, here in the UK), that's all very well, but you start off by saying they're not a global player. Which is it? Globally, Nokia are the market leader, by far. Globally, Apple are behind Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, and RIM.
But even if we're talking only of the US, let's see some citations on market share for the entire mobile market (i.e., not some ill-defined "smartphone" market which artifically resticts the market to the Iphone and a few other handpicked devices)?
You won't for instance ever see a Nokia featured in American TV or films.
So Nokia don't use product placement as advertising on American TV. Big deal. Maybe they don't need to.
Mindshare is powerfull stuff.
By "Mindshare", you mean "What I think is best". Well I think different to you.
Indeed - the equivalent Apple story would be about a mere rumour of a new phone, based on some idle speculation on a non-notable blog, claiming he'd noticed Apple were ordering in some new electronic equipment from some far off country...
And we'd get that story posted everyday, for the next three months.
LG have vastly more market share in the phone market than Apple - yet when was the last time we had a story on them? Compared with daily ones for the Iphone...
So you found a study by the same author to support the author.
Video Game Violence, and media violence in general, are more than proven to increase aggression.
And your evidence of repeatable independent experiments showing this, or that this is the scientific consensus?
These studies in no way justify going to huge lengths to censor such violence.
Indeed. Not to mention things like depictions of violence in religion, or coverage in news media, that is never the target of such censorship.
but those who I know personally and play violent games have less empathy for others, are more likely to be self-oriented and generally perform worse in academic pursuits
Leaving aside the issue of relying on anonymous anecdotes - what has this got to do with the claim that it makes the violent?
If I could justify the time and the money I'd love to do a much larger study but that's not my field so I won't.
If you think that anecdotes count as a study at all, you should probably save your money...
WTF - why are the mod points given out only to people who abuse them, these days?
I've noticed a correlation between the LHC being active, and stupid conspiracy and doom theories. Coincidence?
I wonder if they can just release the engine on its own, and leave ppl to find the content from the original (or maybe attract people to develop new material).
Yes just think - Activision themselves might have been able to rip off the original Civilization, if that was allowed. Heaven forbid.
That's an interesting point (and why you sometimes get "peppercorn" payments, I believe).
I'll remember that next time someone tries to claim an EULA, or indeed any terms of service or "you agree to blah", is a valid contract. Even if it's presented before purchase, do you see any payment being given to the user?
Civ II was MicroProse (ahh, that list takes me back); Activision did Call to Power.
Indeed - it's okay for them to remake Civilization, but they don't like it when someone does it to their games...
This man served his country when he fought in WWII.
If you're going to pay that card, then what about all the people who died in the war, that he's now making money off of?
He does not deserve to be called names.
Oh, but it's okay to call people trolls to their face if they have an opinion that someone disagrees with.
Yes, he was paid for his work. That proves my point.
The sculptor was a veteran.
And?
And why is it fair that the USPS (not the US government ya know) pocketed at least $5M in profit without a single royalty to the sculptor?
Because they provided a service? Again, why is it fair that he gets paid for other people's work, when he was already paid for the work he did? If he didn't think that $700,000 was enough money (!), he could have not taken the job. I don't see how it being funded by the people makes it any different.
Do you have a source for any of your claims?
Oh, and if you quote my post in reply, I demand royalties.
PS - disagreeing with a post doesn't make it a "troll". Learn to mod.
Well sure, if you gave away food, and then they were ill because of your actions, of course it's fair that you are liable. But that's not analogous to this situation.
It would be more like if you gave away some free kitchen utensils, which they used to then make food for a third person. Should you, and not they, be liable for that? If not, why is it any different when someone uses your network to do things they shouldn't?
First: this law is in the UK, not the US, so your whole string of constitutional references is pretty irrelevant.
If the law is justified on the basis that we don't have any of those freedoms that the US has, then that in itself is a reason to be worried about this law. Hardly a ringing endorsement for it.
As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.
Blimey, if you come round to my house, no tea and biscuits for you!
Because the authors allow you to do so.
Yes, the authors, not the Government. So why is it any different about what I do with my network?
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?
Can the analogies get any worse? No one is talking about who pays for it - obviously the person should still pay his ISP. The question is liability for copyright infringement.
Also see all the pics on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial (not to mention any other pictures of memorials, buildings, and so on). Whilst Wikipedia could have a better chance of claiming fair use (as they're not there for profit), at the moment the images are tagged as public domain, or whatever the author of the photo chose to release them as. This is important for cases where the pages might be used for profit or commercial use in general (as is allowed by the free licences that Wikipedia is released under, of course)
Hopefully Wikipedia will stick their finger up at suggestions for the photos to be removed.
Indeed, and furthermore, I believe it's the case that all works produced by the US Government are explicitly released into the public domain.
And it's not as if this is something he built himself. Why does the designer own the copyright, and not the people who constructed it? God knows what kind of contract they must have had...
It's nice to know all those people died, so that other people could have the "freedom" to grow old making money for doing nothing.
Indeed, but even as far as innocence or not, apparently she was 15 years old - at that age, we deem someone incapable of being informed or capable enough to make decisions such as having sex, taking a photo of themselves say topless, buying a lottery ticket, having a drink, smoking a cigarette. In some places, they can't do that for years later.
But apparently, at 15 they're expected to fully understand the ins and outs of copyright law, as well as being fully aware and liable for damages.
Yes, there is a good reason for punishing children who commit criminal offences, where they are a danger to society. But piracy is a civil issue. Children can't even enter legal contracts - should they be liable under civil legal issues?
(And don't be too sure that everyone knows the law, even adults, and even musicians - e.g., UK artists Lily Allen who, after accusing pirates of being thieves, was revealed to have been illegally distributing other artists' works in order to promote her own commercial material, in the form of mix tapes, and then defended it with "i didn't have a knowledge of the workings of the music industry back then" - what 15 year old has a knowledge of the music industry?)