Except you are forgetting about the metric expansion of space. In your analogy, as runner B reaches the finish line, the finish line recedes away from runner A fast enough that runner A can never reach it. Space will expand fast enough that we will _never_ see the light from those features causing the gravitational pull.
Of course, as has been discussed here, the notion of metric expansion of space may be wrong.
It's Cosmic Censorship, man! A super intelligence from the future has come back to ensure the Large Hadron Collider can't create a naked singularity. OMG Xeelee!
So what Mr. Berners-Lee is looking for is to rate the level of journalism of a web site. Of course, I'm sure he'd prefer that the sites he agrees with get rated as "true" and those he disagrees with as "false". Believing in objective reality myself, I wouldn't trust any sort of necessarily subjective rating on the truth or falsity of what I read.
We do not need an MPAA-like organization for the web. Instead of being the arbiters of morality (a joke, to be sure), such a ratings board would be an arbiter of truth. I thought all smart people understood this has always been a bad idea.
I don't remember the episode with non-corporeal vampiric fart-wraiths.
Just as the Klingons don't talk about the period in their history when they lost their cranial ridges and became "hooligans," the Federation finds their run-in with non-corporeal vampiric fart-wraiths deeply embarrassing. From now on, though, you'll know what those crew members are talking about when they claim the helmsman just ran over a frog.
It's harder to run out of magnetic fields than it is to run out of copper.
Exploding Plasma is way cooler than non-exploding copper. I suppose you could make copper plasma, but see number 1.
The old Constitution class used copper wiring, but the space rats and non-corporeal vampiric fart-wraiths kept chewing through it (begin dramatic STOS music). With plasma conduits, the whole ship is one big giant bug zapper.
EPS conduits can also predict pregnancy when you pee on them. I'd like to see your copper wire do that!
What I'm arguing against is the notion that because I was able to pay for a car, the wino ought to get to use it too. If the wino can scrape together the money for wine, he can spend it on internet access at a cafe instead, and upload his YouTube videos. There is a choice of luxuries to be made, and for most individuals, internet access is still a luxury, not a necessity of life, much akin to television.
For the record, I'm not a Libertarian. I wholeheartedly agree that some taxes are necessary, and even that some measure of wealth redistribution is appropriate. But I think we've already passed those reasonable boundaries. Roads and the telephone system were built because the government actually did act to promote the general welfare. But the capital "W" Welfare does not, it promotes dependency in too many cases (deliberately). I say this having had to rely on government aid (SSI) at one point in my life.
It seems to me that your complaints are really about those governing acting in there own interests instead of protecting the interests of the governed. The corporations were allowed to do what they did because of poor government. The anecdotes you mention only support my point.
I'm under no illusions that unconstrained capitalism can solve everything; just look at China. But neither am I under the delusion that more impossible to parse legislation, more committees, and more taxes can solve all of these problems. The "innovations" in eminent domain you mention are indeed sickening.
The Founding Fathers created a tension intended to limit the encroachments of government on the governed. They did this because they all had suffered under a government with nearly unlimited authority, expressed most directly in the form of taxes. We seem to have forgotten that. The notion that government somehow has unlimited ability to solve all our problems is silly. Government is people with power over other people. The fewer with lesser, the better, as far as is reasonable. It reminds me of that demotivational poster: "Incompetence: When you earnestly believe that you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."
Entitlements are simply back-channel ways to exert additional control over the public. Higher taxes remove money from the capitalist economy, which means that individuals can't do as much as they used to with what they earn. As for the internet, yes, our government paved the way (literally in some cases), but free consumers in the market made it take off. When the government does need to step in, it should do so temporarily, as a correction, not as mommy doling out an allowance in perpetuity.
Our priorities are screwed up when we're worrying about making sure the wino down the street can post his latest video to YouTube. I'm all for putting internet access in schools supported by a local millage, but I'm against the government taking away my money to pay for internet access for the guy down the street. I have better ways of spending that money (contributions to charities, and local schools, as well as foreign aid (food)).
One more quote, while I'm at it:
A society that puts equality--in the sense of equality of outcome--ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.
-- Free to Choose, Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman
The force he refers to, of course, is taxation and redistribution of funds. Let's not hand people in Washington more control over our lives, please.
I've also used Framemaker to write technical publications for standards bodies (draft specs, RFP responses...) and it is very good. We used it at my company to author most of the help documentation for our products. We're moving to our own document system using the DITA Open Toolkit. I doubt it will help with math, though, and it isn't an editor, it's a publishing system.
It is neither right, nor privilege. It is a network of computers.
I believe you were referring to access to the internet, which is also not a right, nor is it a privilege. Access to the internet is a service. The real issue is that there is too much interference on behalf of the service providers at the local level. The result is regional monopolies. We need less government interference and more competition, so that when Comcast pulls crap like like their traffic shaping customers can choose to take their dollars elsewhere.
Driving on public streets is a privilege. Freely voicing your opinion is a right. In the context of governmental authority, Internet access is neither of these, nor should it be.
I've been working my way through Psychonauts on the XBox. It's one big puzzle game disguised as an arcade game. The difference is that the puzzle play is in-lined with the natural mechanics of the game, rather than having this big "YOU ARE NOW WORKING ON A PUZZLE" transition. This is better design, IMHO.
Steve Jobs is the brand. This is not without good reason. He is in a position to make style and strategy decisions that bean counters wouldn't otherwise let a company make. Not that he's always right, he's just right often enough that many of the resulting products are cool enough to be hits. Let's face it, someone else might be able to yell at and fire engineers, but most of those guys or gals would be doing it because the engineers developed a product that wouldn't sell to other bean counters. Steve Jobs does it because he believes that his style requirements haven't been met.
In this case, it's a bit like Frank Stephenson yelling at one of his engineers for coming to him with a design that's not Ferrari enough. Not having Steve Jobs calling the shots at Apple means another turn with someone like John Sculley. You get textbook MBA-school generic product management. Naturally, one of the first moves would be to sell to "business" and become more like Dell or IBM. This would (and nearly did) ruin Apple. Steve Jobs has helped Apple carve out its own distinctive niche in the market of consumer electronics. Jonathan Ive may have been hired toward the end of Sculley's watch, but Jobs put him where he is today.
As you say, this has been a double-edged sword for Apple. Jobs drives great products out on to the market. Yet, Apple can expect hardship when Jobs retires or is unable to helm the company for whatever reason. Investors are rightly worried, as, in this case, one individual does make a huge difference, marketing or no marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you are forgetting about the metric expansion of space. In your analogy, as runner B reaches the finish line, the finish line recedes away from runner A fast enough that runner A can never reach it. Space will expand fast enough that we will _never_ see the light from those features causing the gravitational pull.
Of course, as has been discussed here, the notion of metric expansion of space may be wrong.
A brane-fart, eh?
The Braille warning, when translated back to Roman text, reads "You may feel a slight pinch."
Best bit of the comic: "My God! It's full of cars!"
Put that together with Larry Walls oatmeal and finger nail clippings quote and you have Lisp in a Nutshell.
Somebody remind Professor Farnsworth not to point the smelloscope at the dark flow. He passed out last time.
Bah! When Chuck Norris pees into the wind, the wind changes direction. That's mastery.
You've just invented the Large Cat Accelerator. William Yuan, is that you?
It's Cosmic Censorship, man! A super intelligence from the future has come back to ensure the Large Hadron Collider can't create a naked singularity. OMG Xeelee!
So what Mr. Berners-Lee is looking for is to rate the level of journalism of a web site. Of course, I'm sure he'd prefer that the sites he agrees with get rated as "true" and those he disagrees with as "false". Believing in objective reality myself, I wouldn't trust any sort of necessarily subjective rating on the truth or falsity of what I read.
We do not need an MPAA-like organization for the web. Instead of being the arbiters of morality (a joke, to be sure), such a ratings board would be an arbiter of truth. I thought all smart people understood this has always been a bad idea.
Put a one and two zeroes in front of that and we've got ourselves some storage!
So when active, the Large Hadron Collider will generate the equivalent volume of data of 50 Libraries of Congress every second.
The AC obviously codes in Lisp, all those closing parens really add up!
Both were part of my 10th grade English Literature class (nearly two decades ago). I don't know if that's still a part of the curriculum.
Microsoft? Nah. Virtucon!
[VROOM] "How about 'NO!' you freaky Dutch bastard."
Nah, AC/DC man! Gotta get it charged up!
Just as the Klingons don't talk about the period in their history when they lost their cranial ridges and became "hooligans," the Federation finds their run-in with non-corporeal vampiric fart-wraiths deeply embarrassing. From now on, though, you'll know what those crew members are talking about when they claim the helmsman just ran over a frog.
I can think of a number of reasons:
What I'm arguing against is the notion that because I was able to pay for a car, the wino ought to get to use it too. If the wino can scrape together the money for wine, he can spend it on internet access at a cafe instead, and upload his YouTube videos. There is a choice of luxuries to be made, and for most individuals, internet access is still a luxury, not a necessity of life, much akin to television.
For the record, I'm not a Libertarian. I wholeheartedly agree that some taxes are necessary, and even that some measure of wealth redistribution is appropriate. But I think we've already passed those reasonable boundaries. Roads and the telephone system were built because the government actually did act to promote the general welfare. But the capital "W" Welfare does not, it promotes dependency in too many cases (deliberately). I say this having had to rely on government aid (SSI) at one point in my life.
It seems to me that your complaints are really about those governing acting in there own interests instead of protecting the interests of the governed. The corporations were allowed to do what they did because of poor government. The anecdotes you mention only support my point.
I'm under no illusions that unconstrained capitalism can solve everything; just look at China. But neither am I under the delusion that more impossible to parse legislation, more committees, and more taxes can solve all of these problems. The "innovations" in eminent domain you mention are indeed sickening.
Nice.
The Founding Fathers created a tension intended to limit the encroachments of government on the governed. They did this because they all had suffered under a government with nearly unlimited authority, expressed most directly in the form of taxes. We seem to have forgotten that. The notion that government somehow has unlimited ability to solve all our problems is silly. Government is people with power over other people. The fewer with lesser, the better, as far as is reasonable. It reminds me of that demotivational poster: "Incompetence: When you earnestly believe that you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do."
Entitlements are simply back-channel ways to exert additional control over the public. Higher taxes remove money from the capitalist economy, which means that individuals can't do as much as they used to with what they earn. As for the internet, yes, our government paved the way (literally in some cases), but free consumers in the market made it take off. When the government does need to step in, it should do so temporarily, as a correction, not as mommy doling out an allowance in perpetuity.
Our priorities are screwed up when we're worrying about making sure the wino down the street can post his latest video to YouTube. I'm all for putting internet access in schools supported by a local millage, but I'm against the government taking away my money to pay for internet access for the guy down the street. I have better ways of spending that money (contributions to charities, and local schools, as well as foreign aid (food)).
One more quote, while I'm at it:
The force he refers to, of course, is taxation and redistribution of funds. Let's not hand people in Washington more control over our lives, please.
I've also used Framemaker to write technical publications for standards bodies (draft specs, RFP responses...) and it is very good. We used it at my company to author most of the help documentation for our products. We're moving to our own document system using the DITA Open Toolkit. I doubt it will help with math, though, and it isn't an editor, it's a publishing system.
It is neither right, nor privilege. It is a network of computers.
I believe you were referring to access to the internet, which is also not a right, nor is it a privilege. Access to the internet is a service. The real issue is that there is too much interference on behalf of the service providers at the local level. The result is regional monopolies. We need less government interference and more competition, so that when Comcast pulls crap like like their traffic shaping customers can choose to take their dollars elsewhere.
Driving on public streets is a privilege. Freely voicing your opinion is a right. In the context of governmental authority, Internet access is neither of these, nor should it be.
Puzzles aren't dead, "puzzle mode" is.
I've been working my way through Psychonauts on the XBox. It's one big puzzle game disguised as an arcade game. The difference is that the puzzle play is in-lined with the natural mechanics of the game, rather than having this big "YOU ARE NOW WORKING ON A PUZZLE" transition. This is better design, IMHO.
Steve Jobs is the brand. This is not without good reason. He is in a position to make style and strategy decisions that bean counters wouldn't otherwise let a company make. Not that he's always right, he's just right often enough that many of the resulting products are cool enough to be hits. Let's face it, someone else might be able to yell at and fire engineers, but most of those guys or gals would be doing it because the engineers developed a product that wouldn't sell to other bean counters. Steve Jobs does it because he believes that his style requirements haven't been met.
In this case, it's a bit like Frank Stephenson yelling at one of his engineers for coming to him with a design that's not Ferrari enough. Not having Steve Jobs calling the shots at Apple means another turn with someone like John Sculley. You get textbook MBA-school generic product management. Naturally, one of the first moves would be to sell to "business" and become more like Dell or IBM. This would (and nearly did) ruin Apple. Steve Jobs has helped Apple carve out its own distinctive niche in the market of consumer electronics. Jonathan Ive may have been hired toward the end of Sculley's watch, but Jobs put him where he is today.
As you say, this has been a double-edged sword for Apple. Jobs drives great products out on to the market. Yet, Apple can expect hardship when Jobs retires or is unable to helm the company for whatever reason. Investors are rightly worried, as, in this case, one individual does make a huge difference, marketing or no marketing.