Samsung said that Apple's patents were bad for consumer choice. Since Sansun is Pro-choice, I'm quite sure Samsung would feel that denying 4g to apple would be a bad thing to do. Ergo Samsung will not sue apple. Riiiight.
The interesting thing here is that the counter argument that apple applied does not hold for 4G. Apple said that, well there's lots and lots of ways to shape the look and feel of a smart phone, we explored many ourselves and so did samsung. So by forcing samsung out of copying our style and design, the consumer actually will get innovative new stylings solving the same interface problems. all good for consumer choice and innovation and patents.
But unlike style and design, 4G is a standard. You might be able to innovate around the edges of the implementation, but it would not be consumer freindly for everyone to have to reinvent an non-work-alike 4G.
I would therefore guess 4G patents are for sale at non-discrimiantory pricing and apple may need to pay. But it won't be a trial judgement.
There is a fundamental flaw in elections today: lack of consideration for "margin of error". In my opinion, margin of error should be calculated and any election which falls within the margin of error should either be held again or some sort of tie breaker should kick in.
Pretending that we can deduce the intention of every voter with zero errors is noble, naive, and ridiculous.
As long as the election precision is within the accuracy of the election measurement then either candidate is equally qualified by definition. Just flip a coin when things are within the margin of error. Things like bad weather, a flu outbreak at school, a big traffic jam, or a huge mega death concert down town can tip the number of voters. Elections are not perfect measurements of citizen will. they are a good approximation. No need to say that one politician got one more vote, he is more qualified. The fact that they are tied tells you they are equally qualified.
IN the national elections the last thing we want is to elect someone who got a few more votes. We want someone who earned their votes from as broad a base as possible. A very good geographic proxy for "broad base" is to outpoll in as many states as possible. This proxy is also useful since the senate has a small state bias that until we eliminate the senate, we need a president who won in a majority of the senators states if he's going to govern.
Thus we need to invent a system that to first order follows the popular vote, but that as it heads towards a tie that the winner is determined by who won in the most states. I just can't think of a good name for such a system.
To me that's faster than the speed of light. If I has a vdeo camera filming my approach to a distant star on board then, ignoring doppler shift, I would see the star's apparent rate of approach to be faster than the speed of light.
Actually, no.
What you'll see is the Universe getting flatter and flatter along your direction of travel. As you reach the halfway point, you will NOT see the target star as being 25 lightyears away (when you'll be going 99.93% of c, as the Universe measures such things), you'll see it as about 0.94 lightyears away (and moving toward you at...99.93% of lightspeed), which distance you'll cross in five more years....
I don't disagree. but that's what you expect from increasing velocity too. I agree you can see this as space contracting. But you can also see it for what it is. You got somewhere in a certain amount of wall time. That's all we care about. You can travel around the galaxy in 20 years at 1 G. even though the galaxy is 100 light years across.
I'm not saying you will pass the photons emitted before your departure. or you can violate causality. I'm saying distance divided by time is faster than the speed of light from your point of view as a traveller.
Bad physics. You went 50 galaxy-frame light years in 10 ship-frame years, which when divided give only nonsense. To talk about the speed of some object, you must divide the distance as measured in one frame by the duration of the journey in the same frame.
Ship frame: you are in the ship the whole time. It's not moving relative to itself. Distance = zero. Time = 10 years ("proper time") as measured by your wristwatch, smartphone or wall clock on the ship. Speed = zero. An object does not move as measured in its own frame.
Galactic frame: Ship moved 50 LY. Everyone watched and waited 50 years (or 50.000001 years, whatever) for the ship to reach the destination (and actually didn't know until watching through their telescopes another 50 years later). 50/50 = one times the speed of light (actually a teeny bit less.)
Yes indeed, a *fool* can calculate 50/10 = faster than light. But we care not what fools think.
You must be utterly fascinated with your car. When I get in my car I drive it to work. When you get in your car, you remain at rest and the world moved you to your office. the sensation of inertial acceleration must be very hard for you to explain however since clearly you are at rest the galaxy is moving in your frame.
Accelerated frames are not rest frames. I can speak of an acceleration in my frame. I can measure it. I know that if I acclerate for 1G for 10Yrs this that my video camera would show an apparent approach measured in delta-distance/delta-time would be faster than the speed of light. It's true that other measures of my velocity would show different things. doppler shift. apparent speed after I stop acclerating, etc, but just ask yourself what it means to you?
if I say I can get to work 50 miles aways in a hour, I know my average speed. same with crossing the galaxy.
If you built a spaceship that accelerated at 1G constantly then in 100 years it would be going the speed of light.
No, you won't. You'll be going near the speed of light. Of course, you'll be doing that in ten years.
Oops you are right, it is ten years not 100, my arithmetic mistake.
Note that if you can handwave a constant 1G boost, you can reach anywhere in the galaxy in 20 years, including deceleration time.
And no don't tell me I can't accelerate faster than the speed of light. You can. in your own frame.
No, you can't. In your own frame of reference, you'll still be going sublight, and the Universe will look rather odd (blue shifted in one direction,red-shifted in another, and VERY, VERY FLAT!).
Well this is somewhat of a semantic argument. First We agree that in 20 years you can reach anywhere in the galaxy at 1G so let's not lose sight of that.
The remainder of the argument is about what it means to go faster than the speed of light. I argued it was about perception. And you just made my point. If I can cross a 50 light year galaxy in 10 years (my wall clock, no decelleration), then any fool can see I just went 50 light years in ten years. To me that's faster than the speed of light. If I has a video camera filming my approach to a distant star on board then, ignoring doppler shift, I would see the star's apparent rate of approach to be faster than the speed of light.
Now we can argue that during my acceleration space shrunk and during my decelleration space expanded. But from my point of view I transitted a distance in a time that required faster than light travel.
No causality is violated, I can't kill my grand pa or know tommorrows stock prices today, or no time lines get crossed by that. I'm just going faster than the speed of light.
If you experience 1G of acceleration for 100 years, you know you have changed your speed by about 3E10M/sec.
Alas, it doesn't actually work that way....
Now an outside observer might not see it that way of course. But who cares. It's me that's going somewhere not them.
Not only will an outside observer see that you're not going lightspeed+, he won't see you at all. since it will take you ~3E44 years as the universe measures time for you to accelerate for 100 years at 1G. And you'll be about that many lightyears away by then (note that the universe is only about 1E13 lightyears across, by one estimate).
I don't dispute that other people won't see me going faster than the speed of light. Or that it will take a lot of time from their point of view.
As I said the bottom line is how far can I get in a short time. that's my point of view. And you can cross 50 light years in less than 50 years. that's the important point. that means were not trapped here on earth or even trapped in our lifetimes from travelling around the galaxy.
If you built a spaceship that accelerated at 1G constantly then in 100 years it would be going the speed of light. After that distance get pretty short. And no don't tell me I can't accelerate faster than the speed of light. You can. in your own frame. If you experience 1G of acceleration for 100 years, you know you have changed your speed by about 3E10M/sec. Now an outside observer might not see it that way of course. But who cares. It's me that's going somewhere not them.
90% of the pleasure of being alive (be you animal or human) is your childhood. why regiment that. Sure it would be more convenient for me to not have to figure out what to do with kids while I'm at work. But the monotony of it would not be good for kids. Phineas and Ferb are all I need to know.
Indeed, you find the evil of greed all through the bible. It says "the love of money is the root of all evil". Yet so many 1%ers actually think they're going to heaven. Perhaps they will, if they can get their camel full of possessions through the very small gate they called the "eye of the needle".
You cite one of the best known phrases in the bible, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to reach heaven. And yet it is so ignored: it's meaning were not perfectly clear, but not welcome.
It is funny to note however that Camel is a mistranslation of Gamel, which means rope. I like the camel image much better since it is so memorable, but I guess rope does make a lot more sense for what was really said.
Other amusing mistranslations are the Leper Jesus dined with was a Jar maker, not a leper at all. and then there's that unic, who was just a traveler not a unic.
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
How would you explain that Lot raped his own daughters? Gen. 19:36
Lot is a sicko.
Imagine some sicko who is ethnically different from you lives nextr door, everyday he walks by your house giving you the stink eye and eyeballing your pre-pubscent daughter lasciviously, he keeps shouting that your religion is poison and telling you that you are gonna die and god is gonna kill you. One day he sneaks some men wearing turbans in at midnight to his house.
You are worried. What do you do?
Later on after everyone in town is murdered, and he is having incest with his daughters, he tells your next of kin his wife "died" mysteriously.
At this point would your kin believe him if he told them you were an angel rapist and some angels killed you?
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
The word "wickedness" is mistranslated from the Hebrew as well. Wickedness does not imply satanism as it does today. the literal word is "to break" custom or abrahm's laws. In this case the custom is a man is obligated to protect guests under his roof including giving his own life if necessary. To force him to give over those under his obligate protection would break custom. Lot thus took extra-ordinary measures. Apparently this was not unprecedented however as giving over a woman to appease an unruly crowd with sex was also used in Judges 19. There are many examples of extreme hospitality to strangers in the bible starting with Abrahams injunctions, and there are multiple examples of mass killings when hospitality is abused. (ask the sodomites, or the benjamites or the people of Gileah.)
Lot himself was considered an asshole by the people he worked for (cananites) as well as by his relatives. If there is any validity to their feelings about Lot then perhaps this also explains why he would think offering his daughters was a grand idea.
Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context.
my point exactly. The over whelming context here is that Ezekiel tells us exactly why god wanted to destroy Sodom. He never mentions homosexuality. Supporting this are lesser contexts. There are excellent words for sexual congress especially prohibited congress like bestiality in hebrew and used elsewhere in the bible but these are not used. In context the towns people would not have know the gender or angel status of the strangers (and it appears the aramic uses a genderless term as well). The passages says it was all of the people, not all of the men, that were gathered. So were the children going to be raping as well? If they were sex crazed then why the refusal of the daughters? Would not their concern over their safety from late night strangers hidden by a untrusted man and a gate keeper who of all people should know better, be a much much much more plausible explanation for "All of the people" turning out instead of, say, a few horny drunks? That's the context.
but.... thre verses later Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8
known here is clearly a 'sexual' reference.
also Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7
No sorry. You are referring to modern english bibles where this mis translation has been inserted. GO back to the hebrew and you will find that they said "virgins" not "not known man". The references to fornication do not particularly refer to homosexuality. Besides do you seriously think Ezekiel would have not mentioned this if that had been the issue??? really? kind of a big omission.
Let's face it Cananites and Benjamites and ishmalites were all just losers in the battle to write their own history. It's like the Hatfields writing about the McCoys. The Hattfields are going to say what a bunch of filthy motherfuckers the McCoys were. Don't make it so.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex.
There are certainly a few places where it is used to mean sex. For example, "And Adam knew [yada'] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Genesis 4:1) certainly draws a cause-effect relationship between the "knowing" and the "conceiving."
No it does not. To mean that requires a phrase or adjective as you just proved! It clearly shows that you need to supplement the description with the word Conceive or it would not make sense. To know someone intimately is not so say you want to fuck them, it is intimacy. If you add the word conceived now you are saying it was sexual intimacy. But without the adjective sexual, the word simply means what it means which is to know well.
But don't take my word for it, look in a torah or look up the aramic or the greek.
Even in the passage dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, when the men of Sodom demand "Bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada'] them" (Gen. 19:5), Lot tries to appease the mob with his daughters. He says, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada'] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." (Gen. 19:8) The plainest reading of this description suggests his daughters were virgins.
So you are correct that yada' [insert Seinfeld jokes here] doesn't always mean sex, it certainly can refer to a carnal knowledge.
So then david did butt fuck god? I'll alert the pope and all the rabiis, and ayatollahs of your discovery.
I urger you to google the phrase Yeda Yahweh. Either there a lot of people who want to fuck god or maybe you have it wrong?
Meanwhile here is what others say: " "Yadha" never means "same-gender sexual activity" in any of its mearly 1000 appearances in the Bible."
"There is no Old Testament text in which yadha' is said to refer to homosexual coitus. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for both homosexual and bestial intercourse, in addition to coition between man and woman. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha' in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the wrath of the Almighty was turned against these cities because homosexual practices occurred there."
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
In fact the cannanites were in a time of sporaic war with their rivals, which is why they had a gate keeper named Lot. Now Lot was a sneaky guy who didn't even live with his own people. When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed. Perhaps they meant harm to the village. Asking to meet them and learn their bussiness under such cshady circumstances seeme reasonable. And indeed they did come planning to destroy the place and ulimately did.
The word "them" in bring them out, is gender neutral. The towns people did not know if the strangers were all men, angels, or a family. The word for the towns people is mixed gender "all the people", and so the idea they would be raping anyone in front of their wives and kids seems absurd. Finally, when offered the claimed virgin (but married) daughters of lot, the less than horny towns people turned them down, not being interested in sex but safety.
Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
Anyhow. No butsects in soddom. Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
Inkjet prices aren't so bad for those home users that only need to print occasionally..
Occasional printing is precisely what Ink jets are the worst at. Those things clog up and when they do manage to print it's only after a good phlem clearing dump of a lot of ink into the waste bin. It's the laser printers that work well on occasional printing, even with the warm up they need they still are faster than an ink jet, and they don't have unpredictable quality problems when they haven't been used in a while. Dependable when you suddenly need it.
I just bought a new multi-function duplex-printing laser printer from cannon for 77$ including shipping on amazon.com. Even the 500 sheet "starter" toner cartridge will last longer than a full ink jet will, and 3rd party replacement toner cartriges (2000 sheets) will be under $15.
given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
To further make the point 1) Nokia chose to lic apple patents and to obtain others via use of MS windows (which also lic apple patents). This was a slower approach than the android approach and they lost market share to samsung which played fast and loose. Nokia was punished worse than apple for being IP sensitive.
2) Samsungs internal documents compared their in house design to the Apple one and recommended chucking many design elements in favor of copying apple. Thus evidently some (not all) of the apple design exceeded what Samsung could do. it was not obvious evidently. So please stop saying this is all about rounded corners or that someone somewhere implemented pinch zooming on a 40" surface monitor. Getting all these things to work as a whole on a small pocket size device is a matter of careful selection of feature integration and attention to details. Samsung failed on their own to hit the sweet spot and said so in their own documents.
3) The pre-2010 samsung phones and tablets look like crap.
It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less. This is not a terribly inappropriate sum or one that's going to ruin samsung. Indeed samsung would have been glad to pay a billion for the opportunity to take Nokia's market share away from them. Nokia elected to use patent indemnified Windows, they exchanged patents with apple, and Microsoft paid for patents to apple as well. Samsung got the market jump on nokia going the faster but less vetted approach of Android. They, according to their own documents, made deliberate decisions to chuck their in house designs where they differed from apples.
Samsung is coming out handsomly since it now has Nokia's market.
Because you emitted a somewhat coherent set of statements I'll respond in hopes that your are persuadable by logic.
First off net neutrality and bandwidth are not related so please set that aside. There's a huge difference between free lunch and freedom of access.
Now Face time. yeah. but I think you have it backward. Facetime is not on at&T because our current state of affairs is not true net neutrality. If it were someone would offer a facetime replacement. Interestingly, AT7t has said they would not prevent this. So the fact that it does not exist may be on apple. Still this is not et neutrality at work.
But this is where your bandwidth comment makes sense. AT&T is straddlinng this issue. They have to make their offerings afforndable to the most people to maximize their future profit. Thus giving facetime to people who pay for data seems like a pretty reasonable way to go. But this is different than net neutrality. Net neutrality is not about free connections. It is about the connections you can make and have paid for, not being dermined by the connection provider. THey are not free, just not limited.
No net neutrality is what this means: " 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' "
Who actually got hurt in this battle? Well apple probably lost some market share. But it's nokia that got killed. Nokia lost out to all the cheap non-apple spamrtphone makers who got ahead on these google powered apple work-alikes. Nokia didn't play that game and look where it got them. Nokia got hurt far worse than a a billion.
Eric Schmitt is the one that should be paying in the end. The reason the damages were so high is because the jury did't just decide that the two devices looked a bit alike but rather that the similarity was willful. The samsung documents showing that even they thought their innovations just didn't measure up to apples refinements was the nail in the coffin. That is, if all these things were really obvious and easily arrived at by clever engineers then that document woul dnot have existed and googles android not been so slavish a copy of the human interface features.
Surely there is more than one way to make a smart phone? Yes. Microsoft is clearly answering that question with a much more differentiated product that actually licenses the parts of its OS that are like apple from apple and others.
There's not going to be a billion dollars changing hands. This will go on to appeal. Apple can't even afford to punish samsung given they make all the key parts. What apple won was it's certain there will be an injunction against samsung from making things that copy iphoe concepts. Everyone else will get the wake up call. It's good. they will have to think of other designs, come up with their own stuff. They have had plenty of time now.
You mean the OS that, by default, blocks you from running content that isn't blessed by Apple? Yes, you can download apps from sources that aren't the App Store - but they still have to be signed, otherwise, it either will refuse to run or lie to you and say that the app is "damaged" and you should "drag it to the trash."
I'm running apple's mountain lion and this simply is incorrect. If you right click on an application it will run it if it is signed or not signed. It warns you the first time it is not signed then it shuts up. You don't need to disable gate keeper.
the previous versions of the OS warned you the first time you ran anything from the internet. the new one avoids that warning if the app is signed. if it's unsigned it warns you and refuses to run. If you don't know that you can right click rather than left click to run it, then perhaps it's a good thing it refuses to run it. But if you do know to right click then it will let you do it then stop warning you.
What's good about this is that it reduces the number of warnings you see and only flags the ones that might matter. it does not keep warning you once you approve it.
Additionally apple is going to behavioural sandboxes which will let you approve the app to run as you expect but not do things you don't expect. These will grow int he future. This will let you approve more and more dubious apps. Thus this expands the freedom to use "untrusted" sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Samsung said that Apple's patents were bad for consumer choice. Since Sansun is Pro-choice, I'm quite sure Samsung would feel that denying 4g to apple would be a bad thing to do. Ergo Samsung will not sue apple. Riiiight.
The interesting thing here is that the counter argument that apple applied does not hold for 4G. Apple said that, well there's lots and lots of ways to shape the look and feel of a smart phone, we explored many ourselves and so did samsung. So by forcing samsung out of copying our style and design, the consumer actually will get innovative new stylings solving the same interface problems. all good for consumer choice and innovation and patents.
But unlike style and design, 4G is a standard. You might be able to innovate around the edges of the implementation, but it would not be consumer freindly for everyone to have to reinvent an non-work-alike 4G.
I would therefore guess 4G patents are for sale at non-discrimiantory pricing and apple may need to pay. But it won't be a trial judgement.
was a prediction.
There is a fundamental flaw in elections today: lack of consideration for "margin of error". In my opinion, margin of error should be calculated and any election which falls within the margin of error should either be held again or some sort of tie breaker should kick in.
Pretending that we can deduce the intention of every voter with zero errors is noble, naive, and ridiculous.
As long as the election precision is within the accuracy of the election measurement then either candidate is equally qualified by definition. Just flip a coin when things are within the margin of error. Things like bad weather, a flu outbreak at school, a big traffic jam, or a huge mega death concert down town can tip the number of voters. Elections are not perfect measurements of citizen will. they are a good approximation. No need to say that one politician got one more vote, he is more qualified. The fact that they are tied tells you they are equally qualified.
IN the national elections the last thing we want is to elect someone who got a few more votes. We want someone who earned their votes from as broad a base as possible. A very good geographic proxy for "broad base" is to outpoll in as many states as possible. This proxy is also useful since the senate has a small state bias that until we eliminate the senate, we need a president who won in a majority of the senators states if he's going to govern.
Thus we need to invent a system that to first order follows the popular vote, but that as it heads towards a tie that the winner is determined by who won in the most states. I just can't think of a good name for such a system.
I wonder if they will accept ads for ipads.
Actually, no.
What you'll see is the Universe getting flatter and flatter along your direction of travel. As you reach the halfway point, you will NOT see the target star as being 25 lightyears away (when you'll be going 99.93% of c, as the Universe measures such things), you'll see it as about 0.94 lightyears away (and moving toward you at...99.93% of lightspeed), which distance you'll cross in five more years....
I don't disagree. but that's what you expect from increasing velocity too. I agree you can see this as space contracting. But you can also see it for what it is. You got somewhere in a certain amount of wall time. That's all we care about. You can travel around the galaxy in 20 years at 1 G. even though the galaxy is 100 light years across.
I'm not saying you will pass the photons emitted before your departure. or you can violate causality. I'm saying distance divided by time is faster than the speed of light from your point of view as a traveller.
Bad physics. You went 50 galaxy-frame light years in 10 ship-frame years, which when divided give only nonsense. To talk about the speed of some object, you must divide the distance as measured in one frame by the duration of the journey in the same frame.
Ship frame: you are in the ship the whole time. It's not moving relative to itself. Distance = zero. Time = 10 years ("proper time") as measured by your wristwatch, smartphone or wall clock on the ship. Speed = zero. An object does not move as measured in its own frame.
Galactic frame: Ship moved 50 LY. Everyone watched and waited 50 years (or 50.000001 years, whatever) for the ship to reach the destination (and actually didn't know until watching through their telescopes another 50 years later). 50/50 = one times the speed of light (actually a teeny bit less.)
Yes indeed, a *fool* can calculate 50/10 = faster than light. But we care not what fools think.
You must be utterly fascinated with your car. When I get in my car I drive it to work. When you get in your car, you remain at rest and the world moved you to your office. the sensation of inertial acceleration must be very hard for you to explain however since clearly you are at rest the galaxy is moving in your frame.
Accelerated frames are not rest frames. I can speak of an acceleration in my frame. I can measure it. I know that if I acclerate for 1G for 10Yrs this that my video camera would show an apparent approach measured in delta-distance/delta-time would be faster than the speed of light. It's true that other measures of my velocity would show different things. doppler shift. apparent speed after I stop acclerating, etc, but just ask yourself what it means to you?
if I say I can get to work 50 miles aways in a hour, I know my average speed. same with crossing the galaxy.
No, you won't. You'll be going near the speed of light. Of course, you'll be doing that in ten years.
Oops you are right, it is ten years not 100, my arithmetic mistake.
Note that if you can handwave a constant 1G boost, you can reach anywhere in the galaxy in 20 years, including deceleration time.
No, you can't. In your own frame of reference, you'll still be going sublight, and the Universe will look rather odd (blue shifted in one direction,red-shifted in another, and VERY, VERY FLAT!).
Well this is somewhat of a semantic argument. First We agree that in 20 years you can reach anywhere in the galaxy at 1G so let's not lose sight of that.
The remainder of the argument is about what it means to go faster than the speed of light. I argued it was about perception. And you just made my point. If I can cross a 50 light year galaxy in 10 years (my wall clock, no decelleration), then any fool can see I just went 50 light years in ten years. To me that's faster than the speed of light. If I has a video camera filming my approach to a distant star on board then, ignoring doppler shift, I would see the star's apparent rate of approach to be faster than the speed of light.
Now we can argue that during my acceleration space shrunk and during my decelleration space expanded. But from my point of view I transitted a distance in a time that required faster than light travel.
No causality is violated, I can't kill my grand pa or know tommorrows stock prices today, or no time lines get crossed by that. I'm just going faster than the speed of light.
If you experience 1G of acceleration for 100 years, you know you have changed your speed by about 3E10M/sec.
Alas, it doesn't actually work that way....
Not only will an outside observer see that you're not going lightspeed+, he won't see you at all. since it will take you ~3E44 years as the universe measures time for you to accelerate for 100 years at 1G. And you'll be about that many lightyears away by then (note that the universe is only about 1E13 lightyears across, by one estimate).
I don't dispute that other people won't see me going faster than the speed of light. Or that it will take a lot of time from their point of view.
As I said the bottom line is how far can I get in a short time. that's my point of view. And you can cross 50 light years in less than 50 years. that's the important point.
that means were not trapped here on earth or even trapped in our lifetimes from travelling around the galaxy.
If you built a spaceship that accelerated at 1G constantly then in 100 years it would be going the speed of light. After that distance get pretty short. And no don't tell me I can't accelerate faster than the speed of light. You can. in your own frame. If you experience 1G of acceleration for 100 years, you know you have changed your speed by about 3E10M/sec. Now an outside observer might not see it that way of course. But who cares. It's me that's going somewhere not them.
90% of the pleasure of being alive (be you animal or human) is your childhood. why regiment that. Sure it would be more convenient for me to not have to figure out what to do with kids while I'm at work. But the monotony of it would not be good for kids. Phineas and Ferb are all I need to know.
Indeed, you find the evil of greed all through the bible. It says "the love of money is the root of all evil". Yet so many 1%ers actually think they're going to heaven. Perhaps they will, if they can get their camel full of possessions through the very small gate they called the "eye of the needle".
You cite one of the best known phrases in the bible, that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to reach heaven. And yet it is so ignored: it's meaning were not perfectly clear, but not welcome.
It is funny to note however that Camel is a mistranslation of Gamel, which means rope. I like the camel image much better since it is so memorable, but I guess rope does make a lot more sense for what was really said.
Other amusing mistranslations are the Leper Jesus dined with was a Jar maker, not a leper at all. and then there's that unic, who was just a traveler not a unic.
I wonder how these things manage to hold a position and not wind up washed up on a lee shore.
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
How would you explain that Lot raped his own daughters? Gen. 19:36
Lot is a sicko.
Imagine some sicko who is ethnically different from you lives nextr door, everyday he walks by your house giving you the stink eye and eyeballing your pre-pubscent daughter lasciviously, he keeps shouting that your religion is poison and telling you that you are gonna die and god is gonna kill you. One day he sneaks some men wearing turbans in at midnight to his house.
You are worried. What do you do?
Later on after everyone in town is murdered, and he is having incest with his daughters, he tells your next of kin his wife "died" mysteriously.
At this point would your kin believe him if he told them you were an angel rapist and some angels killed you?
How do you explain the fact that Lot asked the people of Sodom not to do such wickedness? (Gen 19:6).
You also need to explain why Lot offers his daughters INSTEAD (it is clear that Lot thought the men of Sodom had sexual intentions).
The word "wickedness" is mistranslated from the Hebrew as well. Wickedness does not imply satanism as it does today. the literal word is "to break" custom or abrahm's laws. In this case the custom is a man is obligated to protect guests under his roof including giving his own life if necessary. To force him to give over those under his obligate protection would break custom. Lot thus took extra-ordinary measures. Apparently this was not unprecedented however as giving over a woman to appease an unruly crowd with sex was also used in Judges 19. There are many examples of extreme hospitality to strangers in the bible starting with Abrahams injunctions, and there are multiple examples of mass killings when hospitality is abused. (ask the sodomites, or the benjamites or the people of Gileah.)
Lot himself was considered an asshole by the people he worked for (cananites) as well as by his relatives. If there is any validity to their feelings about Lot then perhaps this also explains why he would think offering his daughters was a grand idea.
Just like english, the meaning of a word can depend on the context.
my point exactly. The over whelming context here is that Ezekiel tells us exactly why god wanted to destroy Sodom. He never mentions homosexuality. Supporting this are lesser contexts. There are excellent words for sexual congress especially prohibited congress like bestiality in hebrew and used elsewhere in the bible but these are not used. In context the towns people would not have know the gender or angel status of the strangers (and it appears the aramic uses a genderless term as well). The passages says it was all of the people, not all of the men, that were gathered. So were the children going to be raping as well? If they were sex crazed then why the refusal of the daughters? Would not their concern over their safety from late night strangers hidden by a untrusted man and a gate keeper who of all people should know better, be a much much much more plausible explanation for "All of the people" turning out instead of, say, a few horny drunks? That's the context.
but.... thre verses later
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing.... —Genesis 19:8
known here is clearly a 'sexual' reference.
also
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. —Jude 1:7
No sorry. You are referring to modern english bibles where this mis translation has been inserted. GO back to the hebrew and you will find that they said "virgins" not "not known man". The references to fornication do not particularly refer to homosexuality. Besides do you seriously think Ezekiel would have not mentioned this if that had been the issue??? really? kind of a big omission.
Let's face it Cananites and Benjamites and ishmalites were all just losers in the battle to write their own history. It's like the Hatfields writing about the McCoys. The Hattfields are going to say what a bunch of filthy motherfuckers the McCoys were. Don't make it so.
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex.
There are certainly a few places where it is used to mean sex. For example, "And Adam knew [yada'] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain" (Genesis 4:1) certainly draws a cause-effect relationship between the "knowing" and the "conceiving."
No it does not. To mean that requires a phrase or adjective as you just proved! It clearly shows that you need to supplement the description with the word Conceive or it would not make sense. To know someone intimately is not so say you want to fuck them, it is intimacy. If you add the word conceived now you are saying it was sexual intimacy. But without the adjective sexual, the word simply means what it means which is to know well.
But don't take my word for it, look in a torah or look up the aramic or the greek.
Even in the passage dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, when the men of Sodom demand "Bring them out unto us, that we may know [yada'] them" (Gen. 19:5), Lot tries to appease the mob with his daughters. He says, "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known [yada'] man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes." (Gen. 19:8) The plainest reading of this description suggests his daughters were virgins.
So you are correct that yada' [insert Seinfeld jokes here] doesn't always mean sex, it certainly can refer to a carnal knowledge.
So then david did butt fuck god? I'll alert the pope and all the rabiis, and ayatollahs of your discovery.
I urger you to google the phrase Yeda Yahweh. Either there a lot of people who want to fuck god or maybe you have it wrong?
Meanwhile here is what others say:
" "Yadha" never means "same-gender sexual activity" in any of its mearly 1000 appearances in the Bible."
"There is no Old Testament text in which yadha' is said to refer to homosexual coitus. The less ambiguous word shakhabh, however, is used for both homosexual and bestial intercourse, in addition to
coition between man and woman. Shakhabh appears fifty times in the Old Testament; if it had been used instead of yadha' in the Sodom story, the meaning of the text would have been unmistakable. As it is, we have no grounds to assume that the wrath of the Almighty was turned against these cities because homosexual practices occurred there."
After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.
In fact the cannanites were in a time of sporaic war with their rivals, which is why they had a gate keeper named Lot. Now Lot was a sneaky guy who didn't even live with his own people. When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed. Perhaps they meant harm to the village. Asking to meet them and learn their bussiness under such cshady circumstances seeme reasonable. And indeed they did come planning to destroy the place and ulimately did.
The word "them" in bring them out, is gender neutral. The towns people did not know if the strangers were all men, angels, or a family. The word for the towns people is mixed gender "all the people", and so the idea they would be raping anyone in front of their wives and kids seems absurd. Finally, when offered the claimed virgin (but married) daughters of lot, the less than horny towns people turned them down, not being interested in sex but safety.
Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.
Anyhow. No butsects in soddom. Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.
> given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?
Anyone needing color maybe ? Supplies for small color laser printers are actually more expensive than those for inkjets.
Ummm... no they are not. I own a color laser jet and an inkjet, so I know. the cost of cartridges is about 13$ for each color on both.
Inkjet prices aren't so bad for those home users that only need to print occasionally. .
Occasional printing is precisely what Ink jets are the worst at. Those things clog up and when they do manage to print it's only after a good phlem clearing dump of a lot of ink into the waste bin. It's the laser printers that work well on occasional printing, even with the warm up they need they still are faster than an ink jet, and they don't have unpredictable quality problems when they haven't been used in a while. Dependable when you suddenly need it.
I just bought a new multi-function duplex-printing laser printer from cannon for 77$ including shipping on amazon.com. Even the 500 sheet "starter" toner cartridge will last longer than a full ink jet will, and 3rd party replacement toner cartriges (2000 sheets) will be under $15.
given that's the price now for laser printing for a quality company, Why would anyone buy an inkjet?
Difference is, Apple paid Xerox for the right to use it.
Has Samsung paid Apple for all the copying they did?
To further make the point
1) Nokia chose to lic apple patents and to obtain others via use of MS windows (which also lic apple patents). This was a slower approach than the android approach and they lost market share to samsung which played fast and loose. Nokia was punished worse than apple for being IP sensitive.
2) Samsungs internal documents compared their in house design to the Apple one and recommended chucking many design elements in favor of copying apple. Thus evidently some (not all) of the apple design exceeded what Samsung could do. it was not obvious evidently. So please stop saying this is all about rounded corners or that someone somewhere implemented pinch zooming on a 40" surface monitor. Getting all these things to work as a whole on a small pocket size device is a matter of careful selection of feature integration and attention to details. Samsung failed on their own to hit the sweet spot and said so in their own documents.
3) The pre-2010 samsung phones and tablets look like crap.
It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less. This is not a terribly inappropriate sum or one that's going to ruin samsung. Indeed samsung would have been glad to pay a billion for the opportunity to take Nokia's market share away from them. Nokia elected to use patent indemnified Windows, they exchanged patents with apple, and Microsoft paid for patents to apple as well. Samsung got the market jump on nokia going the faster but less vetted approach of Android. They, according to their own documents, made deliberate decisions to chuck their in house designs where they differed from apples.
Samsung is coming out handsomly since it now has Nokia's market.
Because you emitted a somewhat coherent set of statements I'll respond in hopes that your are persuadable by logic.
First off net neutrality and bandwidth are not related so please set that aside. There's a huge difference between free lunch and freedom of access.
Now Face time. yeah. but I think you have it backward. Facetime is not on at&T because our current state of affairs is not true net neutrality. If it were someone would offer a facetime replacement. Interestingly, AT7t has said they would not prevent this. So the fact that it does not exist may be on apple. Still this is not et neutrality at work.
But this is where your bandwidth comment makes sense. AT&T is straddlinng this issue. They have to make their offerings afforndable to the most people to maximize their future profit. Thus giving facetime to people who pay for data seems like a pretty reasonable way to go. But this is different than net neutrality. Net neutrality is not about free connections. It is about the connections you can make and have paid for, not being dermined by the connection provider. THey are not free, just not limited.
No net neutrality is what this means:
" 'remove regulatory barriers that protect outdated technologies and business plans from innovation and competition, while preventing legacy regulation from interfering with new technologies such as mobile delivery of voice and video data as they become crucial components of the Internet ecosystem.' "
Who actually got hurt in this battle? Well apple probably lost some market share. But it's nokia that got killed. Nokia lost out to all the cheap non-apple spamrtphone makers who got ahead on these google powered apple work-alikes. Nokia didn't play that game and look where it got them. Nokia got hurt far worse than a a billion.
Eric Schmitt is the one that should be paying in the end. The reason the damages were so high is because the jury did't just decide that the two devices looked a bit alike but rather that the similarity was willful. The samsung documents showing that even they thought their innovations just didn't measure up to apples refinements was the nail in the coffin. That is, if all these things were really obvious and easily arrived at by clever engineers then that document woul dnot have existed and googles android not been so slavish a copy of the human interface features.
Surely there is more than one way to make a smart phone? Yes. Microsoft is clearly answering that question with a much more differentiated product that actually licenses the parts of its OS that are like apple from apple and others.
Nokia should be suing google.
There's not going to be a billion dollars changing hands. This will go on to appeal. Apple can't even afford to punish samsung given they make all the key parts. What apple won was it's certain there will be an injunction against samsung from making things that copy iphoe concepts. Everyone else will get the wake up call. It's good. they will have to think of other designs, come up with their own stuff. They have had plenty of time now.
everybody wins.
You mean the OS that, by default, blocks you from running content that isn't blessed by Apple? Yes, you can download apps from sources that aren't the App Store - but they still have to be signed, otherwise, it either will refuse to run or lie to you and say that the app is "damaged" and you should "drag it to the trash."
I'm running apple's mountain lion and this simply is incorrect. If you right click on an application it will run it if it is signed or not signed. It warns you the first time it is not signed then it shuts up. You don't need to disable gate keeper.
the previous versions of the OS warned you the first time you ran anything from the internet. the new one avoids that warning if the app is signed. if it's unsigned it warns you and refuses to run. If you don't know that you can right click rather than left click to run it, then perhaps it's a good thing it refuses to run it. But if you do know to right click then it will let you do it then stop warning you.
What's good about this is that it reduces the number of warnings you see and only flags the ones that might matter. it does not keep warning you once you approve it.
Additionally apple is going to behavioural sandboxes which will let you approve the app to run as you expect but not do things you don't expect. These will grow int he future. This will let you approve more and more dubious apps. Thus this expands the freedom to use "untrusted" sources.