Yep, it's all very clinical and precise until you bring alcohol into the equasion.
This is true for most modes of transportation. Of course it's not foolproof, and severe accidents are bound to happen, but once people get used to these things, I bet they are much safer than cars. One good point is, foolish or drunk people are more likely to injure themselves than to injure innocent bystanders (unlike with cars).
The magazine is there to be bought. If he goes in, and gets the "service" of the magazine without paying for it, then that is wrong.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? In North America (as well as in Japan, it seems), bookstores would never try to interfere against people browsing through magazines, since it brings potential customers into their store. It is these policies that make me feel "entitled" to browse a magazine without buying it. Next, what if I memorize, say, a recipe out of a cookbook, and write it down once I get home? Is that considered stealing? What if I jot down the recipe while in the store (I've done that many times, because I don't want to buy a whole book for one good recipe)? Where's the difference between this and photographing? Is it just that photographing is so much easier and allows to copy larger sections?
I have to admit, though, that it is wrong. But I perceive these things as a "small wrongness" comparable with littering the street with your empty soda cup (which I wouldn't do, so I guess it's an even smaller wrongness)
You will notice that Gold's article doesn't appear in a refereed journal: this is because most referees have heard of conservation of energy.
To be fair, one has to say that articles routinely get published on arXiv many months before they appear in a refereed journal. The article probably trying to make its way through the refereeing process at the moment, and the fact that it is not published yet doesn't say anything about the quality of the article.
Having said that, I agree with the poster that the article is loaded with embarrasing fallacies, and probably will never be published in a refereed journal.
What about building a small sail, parking it in a vacuum tube and firing a somewhat powerful laser at it? If there is movement, it works. If not, then, well, no.
Has essentially been done in 1901. See P.N. Lebedev, Ann Phys. (Leipzig) 6:433 (1901).
Um, sorry, no. Photons have no mass. You need the full form of the equation: E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 which for a massless photon (m=0) would become E=pc.
Umm, sorry, yes! Photons DO have a mass. What you probably meant is that photons do not have a rest mass (which an academic statement of sorts, since photons can never be observed at rest). Everybody agrees that photons carry energy E=hf, and Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 therefore gives photons a mass m=hf/c^2. Now one could argue that "yes, but it's not real mass... it's really energy...", but this would be completely beside the point. The proper way to interpret Einstein's equation is that mass and energy are one and the same thing! If it weren't for their mass, light would not be affected by gravitational forces, and gravitational lenses (which are routinely observed by astronomers) would not exist!
After this rant, I have to add a disclaimer though: A brief google taught me that by commonly accepted convention, the word mass always seems to imply rest mass. In this sense, the above poster is of course right. It boils down to bickering about words and definitions, which is usually best avoided:-)
This is a software problem, IMHO. I love the Dell UXGA screens (with font size set to 18); I guess I am just addicted to ultra-smooth fonts. But it's certainly quite annoying that I have to change the font size every time before/after printing a web page.
That should not be a reason to buy a computer with a smaller screen resolution, though. All that is really needed is a "scale fonts for printing" option somewhere in the operating system. They get scaled anyways, 'cause, you know, most printers have more than 1280 pixels per line. I really don't understand why something like this has not been universally implemented yet.
...and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies over the edge, so that they can continue to make profit off their error-prone and outdated technologies they stole from some other company a few decades ago.
No, it's just the familiar 'new' as you and I understand the word.
It doesn't really matter (yet) who represents us in space travel. The day we encounter any extraterrestial intelligence is probably still far, far off. But if we decide to look that far ahead, the problem is real: Do we really want to run the risk that the first impression some aliens get of the human race is from some filthily rich, decadent space tourists???
Sounds like a gift from heaven. Too bad the oil lobby is going to do everything they can to delay the industry-wide adoption of methanol fuel cells. I think the fact that this technology is pioneered by a Japanese company speaks volumes.
this means jack squat to me right now. I have an iBook that lasts about 4-5 hours on a full charge and to power it all I have to use are those little holes in the walls you may have seen.
Fuel cells WILL be a big deal, but right now you're retarted to buy one: electricity just workd too well already
Well, just think about the wildlife photographer, who uses his notebook to assess his digital photographs; or the "embedded reporter" in the middle of (whatever country Bush is going to invade next)... they surely won't want to trail a 2000-mile extension cord behind that's jacked into the wall of their cozy home!
Get a grip, man: there are people with needs different from yours, and that's no reason to call them retarded!
Note to moderator: how the heck is this insightful?
Most applications with a bit of work can be made to install on nearly any distro in fact.
The 'with a bit of work' part would put many users off, methinks. But luckily the vast majority of applications one can think of is included in the distros anyways, or can be downloaded from the distributor's ftp site, which is about as convenient as it can possibly get. And a lot of other applications (OpenOffice, OpenDX, to name a few) are designed to work out of the box on nearly any distro. Like the parent post said, compatibility problems are a rather rare exception.
I raised just this question a while ago in a similar XBox discussion, albeit asking in a nicer way. My favorite answer went along the lines of:
"Uh, if you can't see the benefits of running an operating system on a different piece of hardware, I just don't know how relate to you!"
Kind of proved your point. XBox hacking is done for the sake of XBox hacking. Any "true nerd" would probably grasp the importance of these projects intuitively, but alas, as mere mortals we don't have a chance to understand...
By the way, there must be quite a few philosophers who have thought about topics like these. Does anyone have some links to interesting philosophical articles?
if I make a copy of my consciousness and download it into a new body, will it really be "me", or will it just be a copy of "me", that feels like "me", thinks like "me", in fact thinks it is "me"... but isn't really "me".
Here is an attempt at a proof that it is not really "me": If my original consciousness continues to exist in my old body, it would certainly be "me". My new body would also be "me". So if you define consciousness as a "sense of being an individual", both can't be "me", because there is only one "me". Proof by reductio ad absurdum. The copy of my consciousness in the new body cannot really be "me".
Okay, okay, I know there are a thousand loopholes in this "proof". It's more an attempt at formalizing my gut feelings about this subject.
- The "Eject PC" Command May Not Work Intermittently
It was about time they got the "Eject PC" command to work properly! It's an important feature for those of us who use Win2000 on their fighter jet cockpit computers. I once lost my entire address book because the darn PC wouldn't eject before a crash landing...
By making it so easy to copy the files, you would certainly be in danger of contributory infringement.
If I were to buy a print of some copyrighted artwork and put it up in my window, so that every joe with a camera can take a snapshot and reproduce the artwork, would I be in danger of contributory infringement, too? Or what if I leave some books lying around close to the copier at work? Anyone could make illegal copies of the book!
If the law includes a statement that says, if you make anything that you are the copyright holder of freely available on the web, you have given your de facto permission for other people to download and copy the material. If there wasn't a clause like that, we wouldn't even be able to browse a copyrighted webpage, since browsers automatically cache (i.e. make a local copy of) the page.
Does a clause like that exist in the proposed Swedish law? You'd have to AASL (ask a Swedish lawyer), but I would think there has to be...
I've always wondered why it is legal for a company to contribute towards a campaign. What else can it be construed as except a bribe for better business conditions?
That's exactly the reason why the United States are known in other parts of the world as "the only country where corruption is legal!"
Slashdot Mirror
This is true for most modes of transportation. Of course it's not foolproof, and severe accidents are bound to happen, but once people get used to these things, I bet they are much safer than cars. One good point is, foolish or drunk people are more likely to injure themselves than to injure innocent bystanders (unlike with cars).
The problem is, where do you draw the line? In North America (as well as in Japan, it seems), bookstores would never try to interfere against people browsing through magazines, since it brings potential customers into their store. It is these policies that make me feel "entitled" to browse a magazine without buying it. Next, what if I memorize, say, a recipe out of a cookbook, and write it down once I get home? Is that considered stealing? What if I jot down the recipe while in the store (I've done that many times, because I don't want to buy a whole book for one good recipe)? Where's the difference between this and photographing? Is it just that photographing is so much easier and allows to copy larger sections?
I have to admit, though, that it is wrong. But I perceive these things as a "small wrongness" comparable with littering the street with your empty soda cup (which I wouldn't do, so I guess it's an even smaller wrongness)
To be fair, one has to say that articles routinely get published on arXiv many months before they appear in a refereed journal. The article probably trying to make its way through the refereeing process at the moment, and the fact that it is not published yet doesn't say anything about the quality of the article.
Having said that, I agree with the poster that the article is loaded with embarrasing fallacies, and probably will never be published in a refereed journal.
Has essentially been done in 1901. See P.N. Lebedev, Ann Phys. (Leipzig) 6:433 (1901).
Umm, sorry, yes! Photons DO have a mass. What you probably meant is that photons do not have a rest mass (which an academic statement of sorts, since photons can never be observed at rest). Everybody agrees that photons carry energy E=hf, and Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2 therefore gives photons a mass m=hf/c^2. Now one could argue that "yes, but it's not real mass... it's really energy...", but this would be completely beside the point. The proper way to interpret Einstein's equation is that mass and energy are one and the same thing! If it weren't for their mass, light would not be affected by gravitational forces, and gravitational lenses (which are routinely observed by astronomers) would not exist!
After this rant, I have to add a disclaimer though: A brief google taught me that by commonly accepted convention, the word mass always seems to imply rest mass. In this sense, the above poster is of course right. It boils down to bickering about words and definitions, which is usually best avoided :-)
Put it on your lap, leave it there for two hours, and then we'll see if you still want to call it a laptop ;-)
That should not be a reason to buy a computer with a smaller screen resolution, though. All that is really needed is a "scale fonts for printing" option somewhere in the operating system. They get scaled anyways, 'cause, you know, most printers have more than 1280 pixels per line. I really don't understand why something like this has not been universally implemented yet.
No, it's just the familiar 'new' as you and I understand the word.
Alien ambassador: "Greetings, Earthlings! We come in peace and wish to promote trade and understanding for our mutual benefit!"
Space tourists from Earth: "Smile!!!" (A few dozen camera flashes unload themselves into the eyes of the unsuspecting aliens)
Alien military commander: "It's a trap! They're hostile! Vaporize their planet!!!"
It doesn't really matter (yet) who represents us in space travel. The day we encounter any extraterrestial intelligence is probably still far, far off. But if we decide to look that far ahead, the problem is real: Do we really want to run the risk that the first impression some aliens get of the human race is from some filthily rich, decadent space tourists???
Sounds like a gift from heaven. Too bad the oil lobby is going to do everything they can to delay the industry-wide adoption of methanol fuel cells. I think the fact that this technology is pioneered by a Japanese company speaks volumes.
Well, just think about the wildlife photographer, who uses his notebook to assess his digital photographs; or the "embedded reporter" in the middle of (whatever country Bush is going to invade next)... they surely won't want to trail a 2000-mile extension cord behind that's jacked into the wall of their cozy home!
Get a grip, man: there are people with needs different from yours, and that's no reason to call them retarded!
Note to moderator: how the heck is this insightful?
The 'with a bit of work' part would put many users off, methinks. But luckily the vast majority of applications one can think of is included in the distros anyways, or can be downloaded from the distributor's ftp site, which is about as convenient as it can possibly get. And a lot of other applications (OpenOffice, OpenDX, to name a few) are designed to work out of the box on nearly any distro. Like the parent post said, compatibility problems are a rather rare exception.
I raised just this question a while ago in a similar XBox discussion, albeit asking in a nicer way. My favorite answer went along the lines of:
"Uh, if you can't see the benefits of running an operating system on a different piece of hardware, I just don't know how relate to you!"
Kind of proved your point. XBox hacking is done for the sake of XBox hacking. Any "true nerd" would probably grasp the importance of these projects intuitively, but alas, as mere mortals we don't have a chance to understand...
By the way, there must be quite a few philosophers who have thought about topics like these. Does anyone have some links to interesting philosophical articles?
Here is an attempt at a proof that it is not really "me": If my original consciousness continues to exist in my old body, it would certainly be "me". My new body would also be "me". So if you define consciousness as a "sense of being an individual", both can't be "me", because there is only one "me". Proof by reductio ad absurdum. The copy of my consciousness in the new body cannot really be "me".
Okay, okay, I know there are a thousand loopholes in this "proof". It's more an attempt at formalizing my gut feelings about this subject.
It was about time they got the "Eject PC" command to work properly! It's an important feature for those of us who use Win2000 on their fighter jet cockpit computers. I once lost my entire address book because the darn PC wouldn't eject before a crash landing...
What's your address?
If I were to buy a print of some copyrighted artwork and put it up in my window, so that every joe with a camera can take a snapshot and reproduce the artwork, would I be in danger of contributory infringement, too? Or what if I leave some books lying around close to the copier at work? Anyone could make illegal copies of the book!
Why is there a double standard?
Correction: It's perfectly legal to download free music. Only with copyrighted music it's illegal!
Ah, I just love nitpicking...
Maybe they should rename OpenOffice into LS Office!?
Should I read that as (de facto) ((lossless (audio compression)) (standard)) or as ((de facto) lossless) ((audio compression) standard)?
Does a clause like that exist in the proposed Swedish law? You'd have to AASL (ask a Swedish lawyer), but I would think there has to be...
Great idea! And then we rename the normal-sized cups to "tall", and the large cups to "grande"! Oh, wait... never mind.
That's exactly the reason why the United States are known in other parts of the world as "the only country where corruption is legal!"