According to the Authors Guild logic, using a magnifying glass with a normal print book should be illegal, because then one gets large typeface for free?
No, their logic seems to be even more warped than this. If you used your own magnifying glass then it is fine, no problem. But if you sell a book with a bundled magnifying glass and advertize it as a cheap large print book then they would not be happy.
The analogy was meant to show that the probability of a finding something in a given dataset changes if you have already looked at the first third of that dataset. The actual pattern looked for is not relevant - the probability of finding it will almost always change once you have looked at some of the data.
Theory predicts that the Higgs exists. If the theory is correct, they feel that their experiment has a 50% to 96% chance of finding it.
We just had this presented in a conference yesterday by CDF and it seems to be based on an extremely misleading assumption. The plot they seem to refer to has been shown by CDF and shows the probability of seeing a 2 sigma signal in either 5 or 10fb-1 of data. Realistically the Tevatron could get 10fb-1 data before an LHC result (which will literally blow them out of the water). This prediction shows probabilities varying to as high as 96%.
However, what is very clearly NOT taken into account is that both D0 and CDF have looked at the first 3fb-1 of this eventual 10fb-1 dataset and seen nothing. Indeed the 96% probability lies in the region that the first 3fb-1 excludes the Higgs with a 95% CL. To illustrate the fallacy consider tossing a coin three times. If, before you toss it, you ask what is the probablility of getting 3 heads the answer is 12.5%. However after you have tossed it once and got a tail the probability drops to 0%. While the probability of the Tevatron seeing the Higgs has not dropped to zero the fact that they have found nothing in the first 3fb-1 means that the probability is much less that this plot suggests.
Of course there is a far simpler solution to demonstrate the same effect: build a large turntable and put your short pendulum on that. Since the rotation is far faster than the Earth's the short pendulum will show precession when you sit on the turntable and stays stationary as the table turns if you are not on it.
The big advantage to this approach is that you can put a video camera into both frames which really shows the difference. I've got a couple of videos of this which I made for my lectures which I should probably to upload to YouTube.
Since you have a pendulum you must be in an accelerating reference frame otherwise the pendulum will not swing and hence not be a pendulum. This being the case then your pendulum will still precess in an ellipsoidal motion caused by the effect that this article is aiming to isolate you from!
Not if you turn the building into a Faraday cage. The best way to secure things would be to do this and then the only wireless communication will be to stations also inside the building which you can control. That way nobody outside can detect anything....and if the bad guys are inside the building then you are already in a lot of trouble.
Yes but public performance requires a moderate number of people. Listening to a DVD at home does not constitute a public performance of a film (for which you do not have the rights).
But isn't that 'sale' implicit in every book sale? i.e. I have the right to read the book aloud to e.g. my kids if I so desire?
But there's no essential difference here about how the voice edition is generated.
There is a big difference: I could own an audio recording of the book without having a copy of the text. In the second case I merely own a machine which can read the text aloud to me.
Exotic materials or advanced computer modeling don't change the fact that the power needed to overcome drag increases at the cube of velocity.
Yes, but if you can build a craft with smaller wings because you need less lift the constant coefficient will be less. This is why the new 787 uses composites.
Concorde was financially viable?? I don't know if I'd agree with that. It was a super-premium aircraft that could only carry 100 people.
But there are several airlines (Delta and Air Canada at least) that run 1st class only, non-stop flights on extremely long haul routes. They do this because business types will pay lots of money to save several hours by avoiding having to change planes. It therefore seems logical that they would also do so to shave even more time off by flying supersonic - certainly BA made money off Concorde but did not have to pay development costs. I'm certain that it would be a financial risk but I not think that it would be a guarenteed failure and if it worked the gains could be very significant as increased frequency would drive down development and maintenance costs.
...but they still have to get you back to the US. Hence US law still does not apply it is just that the US government is willing to illegally (as far as local law is concerned) abduct you and transport you to the US where US law does apply.
True - but the person I choose to trust could be proven wrong by anyone who has read the code (and there are people who have). This means that they have zero motive to lie because their reputation will rapidly be toast - as will be the case if they make frequent mistakes. In the closed source case there is no means to catch a mistake or deliberate lie, plus there is financial incentive for people to lie.
Hence open source is still better because I have the option not to trust the experts if I believe (or find) them to be incompetent. With closed source I have to trust the expert and they potentially have an incentive to lie.
They are selling the book in a DRM form precisely so they can split the reading rights from the voice rights.
When I buy a book where does it say that I have to read it? Typically I might read it, give it to my wife or a friend to read etc. Who says that I cannot give it to a machine to read to me?
You might object to that because it seems like you lost some traditional right of ownership.
That "traditional right of ownership" I seem to have lost is choosing who reads the book. It is not a public performance if I am the only person listening to the book being read (at least if it follows the same rules as playing a DVD).
They are not distributing audio - they are distributing text. If I read that text aloud to my kids am I now breaking the law? If not then what is the difference when I have a device read the same text aloud to them?
Realistically, I think they are worried about audio book sales.
People who would buy the audio book will now buy the written book so they are still making money - if they don't like that then tough. I don't seem to remember books coming with a license that states I may not read it aloud. I can understand if I record that reading and try to sell it or perform the reading for a large number of people but reading it aloud to my two kids is neither of these. If I can purchase a machine which can do this then what is the difference? The problem is that I can see this being one of those cases where the law makes an ass of itself.
Ah, but how do we know it is not true? Since it is closed source we can never be completely certain and just have to take someone's word for it....which is really the whole point of the argument for OS.
What I said is still true. They do actually have to move him to the US before they can prosecute him. The problem with McKinnon et al is that the UK government has decided to abdicate its most important responsibility: to protect us, its citizens from foreign powers.
Why did they ground the fleet? Too expensive to fix?
No, they grounded the fleet because a problem was identified that needed fixing and it took time to engineer a fix. They had in fact done so when the 11/9 attacks took place and shutdown the airline market. At this point they simply decided to retire Concorde early since the fleet was getting old. Your ONLY evidence of danger is based on a single crash event and it displays an appalling knowledge of statistics to extrapolate a single event into a general trend. The problem is that with limited statistics there is simply not enough data to know whether Concorde is safer or more dangerous that other aircraft. As I already said before the crash Concorde was the one of, if not the, safest aircraft in the world - based on the same faulty knowledge of statistics.
The sonic boom was not the problem - the massive take off noise was the real issue. I remember sitting on a jet a Heathrow and hearing (then seeing) Concorde take off. It was far, far louder than other aircraft. This is something that could certainly be greatly improved with modern technology.
As for the sonic boom I regularly fly transatlantic. Depending on the exact route apart from the first and last 30-60 minutes of the flight the rest takes place over the north Atlantic, Greenland and far northern Canada.
How about the effects of a far more efficient air frame thanks to computer modeling? Improved material technology such as composites? Given that Concorde was financially viable as it stood (minus the development costs) I would have though that a modern supersonic design would be more viable - although certainly a risk.
..and you base that on the statistics of one crash? That the one crash took it from being the world's safest aircraft to being one of the world's most dangerous. The conclusion that we can reach from this is that you cannot base safety on the statistics of one event.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the Authors Guild logic, using a magnifying glass with a normal print book should be illegal, because then one gets large typeface for free?
No, their logic seems to be even more warped than this. If you used your own magnifying glass then it is fine, no problem. But if you sell a book with a bundled magnifying glass and advertize it as a cheap large print book then they would not be happy.
Sorry - we do have bound states of strange and charm though which are rather boringly called D_s mesons.
The analogy was meant to show that the probability of a finding something in a given dataset changes if you have already looked at the first third of that dataset. The actual pattern looked for is not relevant - the probability of finding it will almost always change once you have looked at some of the data.
Theory predicts that the Higgs exists. If the theory is correct, they feel that their experiment has a 50% to 96% chance of finding it.
We just had this presented in a conference yesterday by CDF and it seems to be based on an extremely misleading assumption. The plot they seem to refer to has been shown by CDF and shows the probability of seeing a 2 sigma signal in either 5 or 10fb-1 of data. Realistically the Tevatron could get 10fb-1 data before an LHC result (which will literally blow them out of the water). This prediction shows probabilities varying to as high as 96%.
However, what is very clearly NOT taken into account is that both D0 and CDF have looked at the first 3fb-1 of this eventual 10fb-1 dataset and seen nothing. Indeed the 96% probability lies in the region that the first 3fb-1 excludes the Higgs with a 95% CL. To illustrate the fallacy consider tossing a coin three times. If, before you toss it, you ask what is the probablility of getting 3 heads the answer is 12.5%. However after you have tossed it once and got a tail the probability drops to 0%. While the probability of the Tevatron seeing the Higgs has not dropped to zero the fact that they have found nothing in the first 3fb-1 means that the probability is much less that this plot suggests.
Of course there is a far simpler solution to demonstrate the same effect: build a large turntable and put your short pendulum on that. Since the rotation is far faster than the Earth's the short pendulum will show precession when you sit on the turntable and stays stationary as the table turns if you are not on it.
The big advantage to this approach is that you can put a video camera into both frames which really shows the difference. I've got a couple of videos of this which I made for my lectures which I should probably to upload to YouTube.
Since you have a pendulum you must be in an accelerating reference frame otherwise the pendulum will not swing and hence not be a pendulum. This being the case then your pendulum will still precess in an ellipsoidal motion caused by the effect that this article is aiming to isolate you from!
Use high voltage cables and let evolution do the rest.
Not if you turn the building into a Faraday cage. The best way to secure things would be to do this and then the only wireless communication will be to stations also inside the building which you can control. That way nobody outside can detect anything....and if the bad guys are inside the building then you are already in a lot of trouble.
Yes but public performance requires a moderate number of people. Listening to a DVD at home does not constitute a public performance of a film (for which you do not have the rights).
It's amazon's effective sales of that right.
But isn't that 'sale' implicit in every book sale? i.e. I have the right to read the book aloud to e.g. my kids if I so desire?
But there's no essential difference here about how the voice edition is generated.
There is a big difference: I could own an audio recording of the book without having a copy of the text. In the second case I merely own a machine which can read the text aloud to me.
Exotic materials or advanced computer modeling don't change the fact that the power needed to overcome drag increases at the cube of velocity.
Yes, but if you can build a craft with smaller wings because you need less lift the constant coefficient will be less. This is why the new 787 uses composites.
Concorde was financially viable?? I don't know if I'd agree with that. It was a super-premium aircraft that could only carry 100 people.
But there are several airlines (Delta and Air Canada at least) that run 1st class only, non-stop flights on extremely long haul routes. They do this because business types will pay lots of money to save several hours by avoiding having to change planes. It therefore seems logical that they would also do so to shave even more time off by flying supersonic - certainly BA made money off Concorde but did not have to pay development costs. I'm certain that it would be a financial risk but I not think that it would be a guarenteed failure and if it worked the gains could be very significant as increased frequency would drive down development and maintenance costs.
...but they still have to get you back to the US. Hence US law still does not apply it is just that the US government is willing to illegally (as far as local law is concerned) abduct you and transport you to the US where US law does apply.
True - but the person I choose to trust could be proven wrong by anyone who has read the code (and there are people who have). This means that they have zero motive to lie because their reputation will rapidly be toast - as will be the case if they make frequent mistakes. In the closed source case there is no means to catch a mistake or deliberate lie, plus there is financial incentive for people to lie.
Hence open source is still better because I have the option not to trust the experts if I believe (or find) them to be incompetent. With closed source I have to trust the expert and they potentially have an incentive to lie.
They are selling the book in a DRM form precisely so they can split the reading rights from the voice rights.
When I buy a book where does it say that I have to read it? Typically I might read it, give it to my wife or a friend to read etc. Who says that I cannot give it to a machine to read to me?
You might object to that because it seems like you lost some traditional right of ownership.
That "traditional right of ownership" I seem to have lost is choosing who reads the book. It is not a public performance if I am the only person listening to the book being read (at least if it follows the same rules as playing a DVD).
They are not distributing audio - they are distributing text. If I read that text aloud to my kids am I now breaking the law? If not then what is the difference when I have a device read the same text aloud to them?
Realistically, I think they are worried about audio book sales.
People who would buy the audio book will now buy the written book so they are still making money - if they don't like that then tough. I don't seem to remember books coming with a license that states I may not read it aloud. I can understand if I record that reading and try to sell it or perform the reading for a large number of people but reading it aloud to my two kids is neither of these. If I can purchase a machine which can do this then what is the difference? The problem is that I can see this being one of those cases where the law makes an ass of itself.
Ah, but how do we know it is not true? Since it is closed source we can never be completely certain and just have to take someone's word for it....which is really the whole point of the argument for OS.
Yes, but this is an illegal act and so, by definition, outside the law.
What I said is still true. They do actually have to move him to the US before they can prosecute him. The problem with McKinnon et al is that the UK government has decided to abdicate its most important responsibility: to protect us, its citizens from foreign powers.
A couple of considerations...
Here is one more:
(4) If you are not in the US, US law does not apply.
Why did they ground the fleet? Too expensive to fix?
No, they grounded the fleet because a problem was identified that needed fixing and it took time to engineer a fix. They had in fact done so when the 11/9 attacks took place and shutdown the airline market. At this point they simply decided to retire Concorde early since the fleet was getting old. Your ONLY evidence of danger is based on a single crash event and it displays an appalling knowledge of statistics to extrapolate a single event into a general trend. The problem is that with limited statistics there is simply not enough data to know whether Concorde is safer or more dangerous that other aircraft. As I already said before the crash Concorde was the one of, if not the, safest aircraft in the world - based on the same faulty knowledge of statistics.
Sonic booms were one one of many problems.
The sonic boom was not the problem - the massive take off noise was the real issue. I remember sitting on a jet a Heathrow and hearing (then seeing) Concorde take off. It was far, far louder than other aircraft. This is something that could certainly be greatly improved with modern technology.
As for the sonic boom I regularly fly transatlantic. Depending on the exact route apart from the first and last 30-60 minutes of the flight the rest takes place over the north Atlantic, Greenland and far northern Canada.
How about the effects of a far more efficient air frame thanks to computer modeling? Improved material technology such as composites? Given that Concorde was financially viable as it stood (minus the development costs) I would have though that a modern supersonic design would be more viable - although certainly a risk.
You are right, but only because the French and the Brit Govs wrote off the development costs.
True but the development costs today should be significantly less thanks to far better computer modeling.
Nope. Turns out it was a firetrap.