If you go by buildings, you could make a good case for astronomy / astrology being the oldest profession. Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc., they all either were observatories, or needed a fair amount of astronomical knowledge to build.
If it accepts _any_ piece of paper, I don't see how that is counterfeiting - theft and fraud, sure, but if I make no effort to copy something, how is that still counterfeiting?
Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.
I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.
* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.
I can see this as having a raft of unanticipated consequences.
Suppose that driverless cars never broke the speed limit & other traffic laws, except in an emergency. Then, revenue from traffic tickets would disappear. Now, many police departments rely on those revenues. So, will they shrink, or find some other source of revenue? (I suspect the latter, and worry what that might be.) And, both the safety and the revenue desire to keep speed limits low will largely disappear, so many speed limits are likely to rise. Likewise, low speed limits are also used to keep people out of residential areas, and that could be accomplished by setting navigation preferences in the autodriver's GPS system, so those could rise too.
And, of course, if you want to have a mistress, she had better be within walking distance, or accessible by public transportation, lest Google start sending your wife ads for Private Investigators and Divorce Attorneys...
I suspect that that will be driven (or not) by insurance; an insurance policy that allows for non-emergency personal driving might become prohibitively expensive.
In the very early days of automobiles, it was assumed that the market would always be small because only professionals (chauffeurs) would learn how to drive, and only the wealthy could afford chauffeurs.
1. The issue is not that she lost her information, it's that her confidential anonymous sources have now been potentially revealed to the agency they were blowing the whistle on.
2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?
1.) That I do fault her on. She had people's lives in her hands, and should have tried very hard to protect them.
2.) Trying, and failing, is not the same as not trying.
3.) Sue the bastards, obviously. Call the EFF and the ACLU and get the best pro bono counsel in the country and nail them to the wall.
My understanding is that the core target of this spec is digital cinema, where the cost is not outrageous, and where there is a (perceived) market need for quality improvements (both for a better experience, and as a way of distinguishing yourself in the market).
One thing I've noticed as a passenger is that the most dangerous-feeling aspect of flying right now seems to be the winding security line itself.
There is good reason for feeling that. The most realistic terrorist threat model today is that someone would explode a device (or commit some other outrage) in the TSA line. It would probably be more effective than taking out an airliner (it would totally shut down many airports), and it would be a lot easier to accomplish.
The lines at entrances to the Baghdad "Green Zone" and other similar security checkpoints in Iraq have been frequently the target of attacks of this sort. However, those checkpoints are really intended to protect specific people and activities inside the security bubble, and those attacks don't typically hurt the high-value targets inside, and so those checkpoints are actually providing the intended security, albeit at a cost. Since the TSA security checkpoints really serve no security purpose (how realistic is the threat model they nominally protect against?), it's hard (for me at least, YMMV) not to conclude that they actually reduce security.
Killing a politician with subtle electronic sabotage is not appealing to terrorists. It is not dramatic. It is quiet. Terrorists would rather blow a city block with TNT to kill a politician. Killing somebody using defibrillator suits spies or other government agents.
And my guess is that that is what he was really worried about.
Based on his history it seems more likely that he was worried that the "organs of state security," or even some of his corporate sponsors, might do this to him, to make sure that various secrets stayed, well, secret.
Can Huawei actually gain more customers by playing off the Snowden scandal?"
Of course they can. In fact, I suspect they already have.
One of the Cisco et al. selling points was "you can trust us with your data, can you trust Huawei ?" Now that is gone. Loosing a selling point like that, in a competitive market, means that sales will go to the companies it was directed against.
The tea-partiers may or may not understand science, but, fortunately for the future of our democratic republic, they are manifestly ignorant of the legislative process, which is why they just got their heads handed to them on a platter in the U.S. Congress.
14 year terms, required registration and a possible (single) 14 year extension would go a long way to restoring sanity in copyright.
Now, this would require abrogating / modifying an international treaty, but I don't see why I should care given that the whole point of such treaties is to put these matters beyond the reach of the mere legislatures and parliaments of democratic governments. (If you doubt this, you really need to follow how such treaties are negotiated.)
In my (limited but non-zero) direct experience, billionaires are dangerous, since they tend to go outside their areas of competence, since everyone assumes that they know what they are doing, and since (at least in the United States) very few people will speak up when they are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If you go by buildings, you could make a good case for astronomy / astrology being the oldest profession. Stonehenge, the pyramids, etc., they all either were observatories, or needed a fair amount of astronomical knowledge to build.
If it accepts _any_ piece of paper, I don't see how that is counterfeiting - theft and fraud, sure, but if I make no effort to copy something, how is that still counterfeiting?
In clearly related news, "kittens, it was quickly discovered, do not scale" as Kittens-on-demand, $20 for 15 minutes of snuggling, melts down.
My basement also smells of cat urine. When are you going to come and fix it?
Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.
And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked at this and come to alternate conclusions.
I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.
* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.
The venture capitalists sure do seem to love these guys.
I can see this as having a raft of unanticipated consequences.
Suppose that driverless cars never broke the speed limit & other traffic laws, except in an emergency. Then, revenue from traffic tickets would disappear. Now, many police departments rely on those revenues. So, will they shrink, or find some other source of revenue? (I suspect the latter, and worry what that might be.) And, both the safety and the revenue desire to keep speed limits low will largely disappear, so many speed limits are likely to rise. Likewise, low speed limits are also used to keep people out of residential areas, and that could be accomplished by setting navigation preferences in the autodriver's GPS system, so those could rise too.
And, of course, if you want to have a mistress, she had better be within walking distance, or accessible by public transportation, lest Google start sending your wife ads for Private Investigators and Divorce Attorneys ...
I suspect that that will be driven (or not) by insurance; an insurance policy that allows for non-emergency personal driving might become prohibitively expensive.
In the very early days of automobiles, it was assumed that the market would always be small because only professionals (chauffeurs) would learn how to drive, and only the wealthy could afford chauffeurs.
Get it into production, allow for Moore's law, and these could be competitively priced in a very few years.
Or imprison you, as the case may be.
Sue them? And watch as they use state sovereign immunity to brush you off?
I am not a lawyer. this is not legal advice but of course you can sue the Feds for unlawful arrest, and even win.
1. The issue is not that she lost her information, it's that her confidential anonymous sources have now been potentially revealed to the agency they were blowing the whistle on.
2. Where can you hide your stuff that law enforcement cannot find it if they try hard enough?
3. The government can find any excuse to raid you if they want (in this case, because in 1986 her husband was found guilty of resisting arrest). And once they do find an excuse, what can you do when an elite, armored team shows up at your doorstep?
1.) That I do fault her on. She had people's lives in her hands, and should have tried very hard to protect them.
2.) Trying, and failing, is not the same as not trying.
3.) Sue the bastards, obviously. Call the EFF and the ACLU and get the best pro bono counsel in the country and nail them to the wall.
My understanding is that in big screen cinema's you can, if you sit close to the screen.
My understanding is that the core target of this spec is digital cinema, where the cost is not outrageous, and where there is a (perceived) market need for quality improvements (both for a better experience, and as a way of distinguishing yourself in the market).
There is good reason for feeling that. The most realistic terrorist threat model today is that someone would explode a device (or commit some other outrage) in the TSA line. It would probably be more effective than taking out an airliner (it would totally shut down many airports), and it would be a lot easier to accomplish.
The lines at entrances to the Baghdad "Green Zone" and other similar security checkpoints in Iraq have been frequently the target of attacks of this sort. However, those checkpoints are really intended to protect specific people and activities inside the security bubble, and those attacks don't typically hurt the high-value targets inside, and so those checkpoints are actually providing the intended security, albeit at a cost. Since the TSA security checkpoints really serve no security purpose (how realistic is the threat model they nominally protect against?), it's hard (for me at least, YMMV) not to conclude that they actually reduce security.
I predicted in 2003 it would take until at least 2016 to bring these guys to trial. Still haven't seen any reason to change that yet.
Killing a politician with subtle electronic sabotage is not appealing to terrorists. It is not dramatic. It is quiet. Terrorists would rather blow a city block with TNT to kill a politician. Killing somebody using defibrillator suits spies or other government agents.
And my guess is that that is what he was really worried about.
Based on his history it seems more likely that he was worried that the "organs of state security," or even some of his corporate sponsors, might do this to him, to make sure that various secrets stayed, well, secret.
Of course they can. In fact, I suspect they already have.
One of the Cisco et al. selling points was "you can trust us with your data, can you trust Huawei ?" Now that is gone. Loosing a selling point like that, in a competitive market, means that sales will go to the companies it was directed against.
http://xkcd.com/1235/
The tea-partiers may or may not understand science, but, fortunately for the future of our democratic republic, they are manifestly ignorant of the legislative process, which is why they just got their heads handed to them on a platter in the U.S. Congress.
Mod parent up. One third of the way through, and the only one worth anything so far.
14 year terms, required registration and a possible (single) 14 year extension would go a long way to restoring sanity in copyright.
Now, this would require abrogating / modifying an international treaty, but I don't see why I should care given that the whole point of such treaties is to put these matters beyond the reach of the mere legislatures and parliaments of democratic governments. (If you doubt this, you really need to follow how such treaties are negotiated.)
What will it take to get the Federal government out of the business of wasting money buying local cops toys?
In my (limited but non-zero) direct experience, billionaires are dangerous, since they tend to go outside their areas of competence, since everyone assumes that they know what they are doing, and since (at least in the United States) very few people will speak up when they are wrong.