The ehtics rules are their because it's an area ripe for abuse. Junior researchers could be pressured and thus "voluntary" might not really be voluntary. As the story goes, the donations were properly refused and then given anonymously. It might seem that there was no pressure and therefore legit. Even here it's a tad dicey. First because it puts pressures for unethical behaviour on competing scientist who lack such "enthusastic" assistants. Second because the story is perhaps too pat and one could imagine this story is a rule dodge to conspire to permit "voluntary" donations. E.g. if you can pressure someone to donate an egg it's not a stretch to pressure them to donate it anonymously as well. And third there's all sort of ways an avuncular senior research might hint and cajole a naive adoring junior researcher to act in this manner without actually telling her what to do.
So the point is it's ripe for abuse and the fact that a cover-up happened is what changed this from a grey area to a black and white one. One the otherhand there have been famous examples on medical researchers using their own selves to supply stuff. For example. craig ventor the human genome researcher turned out also to be one of the 5 test subjects whose DNA was sequences first.
I think the real reason for this is a dry run for the case where you WOULD pay $30 for some songs. There's bussniess springinging up to deliver after-concert recording from the sound board of the concert you just heard. In that case many people would pay a premium to get a pristine souvenier/live recording. This is just a test drive to find problems before implementing the on-demand recording model.
Cute method and quite practical. But not the same thing as true phase recovery. Once you recover the phase of the image from the two photos you can synthetically compute any other possible image taken with any optical train along the same optical path. That is you can refocus at any plane or distort it imaginary ways (like changing the aperature). This method you link to is a effieicnt trick for hybridizing two images to get the best (infocus) parts of both into a single image.
I don't have a web page. The chief Terms to google for is phase recovery. In the monochromatic regime look at synthetic aperature, speckle imaging as google terms. A lot of the eray work on this (70s and 80s) happened at defense contractors in the US and the soviet union. Amusingly the literatture with the mathematics was published WITHOUT mentionain the application. It was just math on how to recover phases from two systematicially transformed images (i.e. out of focus). The first people to use this in the non classifed world were the solar astronomers.
By the way, in case somebody doubts this, I did this in 1996 and used my mac laptop to compute the refocused image. I was experimenting with imaging from earth imaging sattelites. I still have the code, which actually was a relatively slow script written in Igor Pro.
Even better you can do this with a single lens and an ordinary camera. just take one photo in focus and one photo at a different focal plane. Voila. all the information you need to reconstruct the phase front for perfect focus. Bonus is that if it is ion focus then one of the photos is probably good enough right from the start without any signal processing. This whole 90,000 lenslet camera seems liek the hard way.
If the record companies only wanted to discount some titles, not increase prices, they are free to do that right now: just offer rebates on songs bought on i-tunes. e.g. buy any ten of these super-saver songs and we'll give you one free itunes purchase.
So clearly this is not about discounting. What it is about it increasing the cost of singles for pop-artists.
I'm not opposed to them asking for a price they want per se, but at least they could state this more honestly and stop couching it as greater consumer benefit.
What is really going on here is they are afraid of the "hit single" that sells the album problem. That's scarey territory for them because marketing a whole suite of songs rather than pushing just one in the public attention is a lot harder EVEN IF all the songs were equally good. It's even more scarey to them when there really is only one good song on the album. So this really rocks the status quo.
Here's what I'd propose as a possible compromise. allow them to bundle songs. suppose you have a hit brittaney singles song. Instead of charging more for that one, release it only as a virtual EP: you have to buy four other "lower value" songs with it for $5. But require that the average price on any bundle is still $1 per song.
Sure that's not as desirable to me as buying exactly what I want for the lowest price. But c'mon lets compromise. There is merit that some songs are worth more than others. THere is merit that uniform pricing really the sales liquid and consumer freindly. We can have something that approximates both. Itunes already has example of this, where certain songs only are available with album purchases. Here we need only generalize the concept album to ala carte selections across artists.
The problem with this idea is not that consumers won't like it, but that to the music compaines thisis not about flexibility but about raising prices.
At least one record company announced yesterday that seteve is now in talk to have variable pricing sometime in the next year. Not a big concession but one he opposed.
Maybe someone could explain why collisions are a serious problem for MD5. Or at least in what instances they are. I can see that in some cases, such as password hashing this could be a problem. But for many other uses I don't see what harm a collision has. Maybe I misunderstand but as I understand it MD5s are normally used in a checksum manner to sign or provide a fingerprint of a document. If you have an original document and compute it's MD5 then it can match some certified MD5 check sum. If someone were to generate a fake document they coul dnot design it to match the MD5 fingerprint. They could create some bit of gibberish that did match it but not a document that was useful as a forgery.
I guess if one were trying to deliberately pedal gibberish, like say if you were the RIAA trying to destabilize a torrent net then that would be all you care about. But for more general issues I don't get it.
Or is it now possible to generate a collision that also contains some intentional content like a binary program or source code or bank statement. That woul dbe be bad.
It seems like even in the case of gibberish generation that some simple hacks could extend the useful life of this. For example, if you were to MD5 a whole document and then MD5 the concatenation of every other byte in the document, it woul dbe pretty hard to find two collisions that had that property simulateously. Sure I wont doubt there are better ways to hash something than adding hacks to MD5. I'm just saying that it seems like a simple hack might well be good enough to extend its useful lifespan for passwords and file shareing.
This may not be such a thing as chicken and egg. Maybe it's jut that people like 2-D TV. As has been noted many times, esp in regard to the ipod, video+audio is not always superior to video only. Stereo graphic books have been around for 200 years and they did not take over regular books. 3-d movies have not taken over regular movies. Holograms have not take over photographs.
When I wear a pair of Crystal-eyes doing anything elese with my computer or in the room is prohibitive. Somethings just work better as 2-d experiences. Our brains understand that not everything in the 2-d picture should be in focus. But in 3-d everything shoul dbe in focus if we focus our eyes on it--but that won't happen here. only some of this will be in focus so it's going to be mighty strange for our brains.
Is a microsoft patch anything like one of those Nicotine patches that help you stop smoking? If so I wonder if my health care will cover it. I'd like to slap one of those on asses of my co-workers and help get them off their addiction to microsoft.
I guess one might consider Linux to be sort of a methadone. Something that hels you with your cravings for the bad stuff, but ultimately leaves you without that satsifying high.
Personally I useto OSX, but I'm not addicted. I could stop anytime I want to. I just don't want to that's all. Now excuse me while I watch the Genie effect a few times before I send this.
The first sign the Fed's are listening to you is when they give you a nice small bust of lenin for your mantle peice. That's exactly what the British did to the russian ambassador back in the post world-war two era. They gave him a a gift of a small statue and inside it they had mounted a corner cube which is a passive device that enhances the retro-reflection of microwaves beamed at it. (read about it is Peter Wright's (banned in UK) book Spycatcher--wright was the science officer for MI5 and inventor of the technique)
The second sign is when you feel toasty warm and the chair feels cold. In the 70's and 80's the carter and reagan administrations were perpetually complaining that the level of microwave energy measured inside the US embassy exceeded the OSHA limits for exposure. Eventually the US built a new embassy with enhanced shielding. UNfortunately the Soviet's put listening devices into the bricks. The embassy had to be knocked down and rebuilt. Of course, peter wright did exactly the same thing to the Soviet embassy in canada. Each night he snuck into the construction site and pulled wires up the inside of the walls to his microphones in specially made window sills. The soviet's learned about it from a mole in MI5 and had to build a second interior wall so that no rooms were near the windows.
Doppler microwave spying is quite old. As is laser vibrometry on windows.
Of course if apple succeeds then the RIAA can now extend their content-tax to the the 3-rd party vendors too. "they are profiting off our content being served so they should pay the RIAA too".
1) longer lived satellites, which by weight are 50% fuel 2) heavier payloads for rockets. 3) smaller more robust rockets--no more shuttle fuel tank explositions 4) launch the ISS in 10x fewer launches, making pH of acidified atmosphere 1 pH unit higher, closer to breathable. 4) ten times fewer mobile ballistic missiles to hide and still be able to destroy the earth 5) perhaps a return trip from mars. 6) my personal rocket car will get better fuel milage than my hummer. 7) New distance record for rocket propelled pumpkin toss 8) Jet pack, baby!
By the way, When will these be available for my este's rocket and bong lighter ?
Your brain learns both by creating connections and by deleting them. If you create to many new connections you can't thnk straight. Everything gets too connected and you can't resolve your thoughts. You have to prune nodes to be able to think effciently and to focus.
Thus your comment is right on.
Clearly the only solultion is to first smoke loads of weed to build up your brains connecitons, and then huff gasoline to prune them back to a useful level. Then you will be a super genius.
Unless you are a poultry worker or otherwise handle wild fowl you are not at risk. This disease is spread bird to man but not man to man.
If a farmer wants to protect his livestock from being destroyed he's being nuaghty but he's not directly endangering that many people in that single act. It's stupid and socially irresponsible. But it's also not something that is that out of line with common practices in other areas.
There are a variety of zoonotic diesaases that can be transmitted to animal handlers and we don't panic over those. Most Flu's in fact come from Bird's via pigs. And many of those, unlike bird flu, can be transmitted from man to man.
There's loads of prarie dog and mouse diseases with high fatality rates in human's like Yserina Pestis or Hanta Virus. Yet we don't all wear bunny suits when we put out mouse traps in your houses. The people who vaccum prarie dog warrens to transplant them are actying just as rashly. Pox viruses can be caught from animals and have killed more humans than all viruses in histroy combined.
Yet we don't panic over these. This is all rubbish except to the poultry industry workers and owners. Not that the farmer's should not be prudent and do the right thing and slaughter their animals. But they have a right to ask not for an over reaction or excess culling.
Since when is water free?
Not the kind you drink in town. Maybe if you ladel some out of the mississippi. Even well water is not free--you bought it when you bought the land.
the only free water is rain.
the price is interesting too. I get a 30 min video with aac audio for $2. compare that to a 3 minute song for $1 or 45 minute album for $10. it makes the audio seem like a ripoff in terms of bits/dollar. I wonder how they can afford to deliver that much material and bandwidth for so little expense?
on the otherhand in terms of sheer bits/dollar a pvr+ cable delivers a lot more if you are not selective. of course you don't have the option of commercial free versions of broadcast video on cable.
By focusing on my comment about 30 fold you are missing the point. Actually your numbers sort of help make the point. It is not going to require a 30 fold increase to make online campaigning significant. it will require much less than that. The point is that it's already grown 30 fold so it has the potential to grow enough that it becomes the dominant medium. to do that does not require 30 fold growth be realized. But that is the current growth rate so it's going to get to a significant level quickly.
That said levaing this loophole open allows all sorts of shenanigans. For example one might think that the internet is a pull medium not a push medium so one can't really bother me with so many ads. But imagine the following ad:
WIN A FREE IPOD: just send get 5 more freinds to sign up and send campaign literature to five of their freinds!
Or
WIN A FREE IPOD: hold a dean for america block party.
That is going to be push advertising at it's very best and targeted form. And that kind of quality media will easily soak up the bux.
But it can get even more unethical. Imagine linked buys. Imagine compaines that try to steer clickers to their web media with purchases of advertising outside the internet. Say a company puts up a billboard and that says
GW Bush he's for america and he's for you. GO to xxx.com and enter "GW Bush" for a free cheesburger coupon.
Now this company gets to charge huge dollars for their clicks and also gets high dollars because of the hich click rate. They cost a lot because their overhead is higher. But it's still considered internet media purchases since the candidate had nothing to do with buying the Cillboard--that was corporate advertising for a web site. Wink Wink.
So now we have internet bucks leaking back into conventional media. And it just snow balls from there. How many columnists write on both the internet and paper. Many papers even connect their print/online advertising media: advertise in one and you get a free ad in the other.
So it comes down to a tension between two public goods: the right of free speech and equal access to election offices. the courts have many times decided that free speech means you can say what you want, but you can't always say it where and when you want, and it doesn't mean you can't be arrested after you say it. You just can't be stopped pre-emptively with very limited exceptions (imminent danger arguments).
For example, Presidential Eugene Debs was put in prison for treason under the sedition act (the act the patriot act was modeled on) for speakling ill of the president and munition maufacturers during a time of war. That was specifically called out in the sedition act as treason. So you free speech defintely is not free of consequences and limitations. (by the way that law existed for more than half the duration of this nation so it's not a brief abberation). More recently we have the phenomena of razoe wire enclosed "free speech zones" at presidential rally's. Objecitonable but legal. More benignly if you start ranting in the middle of your favorite restaurant or the senate floor you will be tossed out if not arrsested. You cant just speak when you want to.
So restrictions of money-as-speech are certainly not an infringement of free-speech since that goes more to opportunity than to content. Content is freely allowed, opportunity is not. thus campaign spending limits are not in conflict with free speech.
I wonder if some bacteria will evolve the ability to eat this stuff. it is carbon after all. One might argue that they don't eat diamonds either (or maybe they do just slowly). But it's a different material and carbon based instead of silicon. Bacteria have evolved to eat other novel man made structures (e.g. nylon). In fact it's the novelty that makes it attractive to a bacteria since it will be a food source it has no competition for.
mmmm.....nanotubes.
Brittanny spears did not write Oops I did it again. She re-recorded a 1932 B-side Louis armstrong recording. That was written in the hey day of 8-count jazz and swing. No wonder it might show some complex structure in a day when 4/4 is all she wrote.
You are obviously mistaking the concept of image sharpening, and image scaling with resolutuion.
Here's an example that may help. If you have an image on screen in photoshop you can apply certain "sharpening" filters that distort the image in ways that make it crisper and give the illusion of more resolution. Of course nothing has actually been added to the picture. it's still the same size on your screen and occupies the same number of pixels it did before. it just "looks" sharper to your eye.
Now imagine that this screen I speak of was in fact the projector and it was say, an svga, projector. The image on this would now look sharper to you. But it is still 800x600. You did not need to go to larger number of pixels to obtain this "sharpening" effect.
Now imagine you scale this image. Now you are increasing the number of pixels but you are not changing the resolution. It's still the same as it was at 800x600. It just occupies more pixels. But it has exactly the same resolution as before.
However when you do that scaling, since it was not an interger multiple of the original there was some aliasing that took place. If you looked at it it will look like crap. So you have to blur the image slightly to "anti-alias" it. This also makes other rough artifacts of the scaling and sharpening appear to vanish. But they only vanish at the expense of actually reducing the resolution below that of the original 800x600 image.
In fact if you were to compress this new image it would actually compress to a data size smaller than the original DVD because the operations you applied actually deleted some of the dynamic range of the pixels and the distortions you introduced were all mathematically predictable. Thus you have in effect reduced the information content of what is on the screen by the scaling and sharpening process.
The link to the "example" you provided in another post really proves all these point. As you can see by looking at it, this is just an example of this photoshop effect. the before and after images have the same number of pixels. If those were SVGA sized images then you have proven in fact that you can sharpen an svga image.
Now you might ask the following if it were really possible to increase resolution over the native source size then why dont all video monitors do this too? Or more to the point do you want your video monitor filtering everything you send it or would it be better to apply those filters only when you want them in the computer and let the display show things as the computer wants. Obviously the latter.
the bottom line is if you start with 800x600 worth of information at a certain dynamic range then you can't increase the resolution by adding more pixels. you can sharpen it if it's blurred in some way but you don't need more pixels for that. 800x600 is sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
The ehtics rules are their because it's an area ripe for abuse. Junior researchers could be pressured and thus "voluntary" might not really be voluntary. As the story goes, the donations were properly refused and then given anonymously. It might seem that there was no pressure and therefore legit. Even here it's a tad dicey. First because it puts pressures for unethical behaviour on competing scientist who lack such "enthusastic" assistants. Second because the story is perhaps too pat and one could imagine this story is a rule dodge to conspire to permit "voluntary" donations. E.g. if you can pressure someone to donate an egg it's not a stretch to pressure them to donate it anonymously as well. And third there's all sort of ways an avuncular senior research might hint and cajole a naive adoring junior researcher to act in this manner without actually telling her what to do.
So the point is it's ripe for abuse and the fact that a cover-up happened is what changed this from a grey area to a black and white one. One the otherhand there have been famous examples on medical researchers using their own selves to supply stuff. For example. craig ventor the human genome researcher turned out also to be one of the 5 test subjects whose DNA was sequences first.
I think the real reason for this is a dry run for the case where you WOULD pay $30 for some songs. There's bussniess springinging up to deliver after-concert recording from the sound board of the concert you just heard. In that case many people would pay a premium to get a pristine souvenier/live recording. This is just a test drive to find problems before implementing the on-demand recording model.
Cute method and quite practical. But not the same thing as true phase recovery. Once you recover the phase of the image from the two photos you can synthetically compute any other possible image taken with any optical train along the same optical path. That is you can refocus at any plane or distort it imaginary ways (like changing the aperature). This method you link to is a effieicnt trick for hybridizing two images to get the best (infocus) parts of both into a single image.
I don't have a web page. The chief Terms to google for is phase recovery. In the monochromatic regime look at synthetic aperature, speckle imaging as google terms. A lot of the eray work on this (70s and 80s) happened at defense contractors in the US and the soviet union. Amusingly the literatture with the mathematics was published WITHOUT mentionain the application. It was just math on how to recover phases from two systematicially transformed images (i.e. out of focus). The first people to use this in the non classifed world were the solar astronomers.
Sure this is easy to do with video. Just a beam splitter that adds extra path length to a second CCD or to half of the main CCD
By the way, in case somebody doubts this, I did this in 1996 and used my mac laptop to compute the refocused image. I was experimenting with imaging from earth imaging sattelites. I still have the code, which actually was a relatively slow script written in Igor Pro.
Even better you can do this with a single lens and an ordinary camera. just take one photo in focus and one photo at a different focal plane. Voila. all the information you need to reconstruct the phase front for perfect focus. Bonus is that if it is ion focus then one of the photos is probably good enough right from the start without any signal processing. This whole 90,000 lenslet camera seems liek the hard way.
Is this the place people have been telling me to stick my head all these years? Gosh I thought they meant something else.
If the record companies only wanted to discount some titles, not increase prices, they are free to do that right now: just offer rebates on songs bought on i-tunes. e.g. buy any ten of these super-saver songs and we'll give you one free itunes purchase.
So clearly this is not about discounting. What it is about it increasing the cost of singles for pop-artists.
I'm not opposed to them asking for a price they want per se, but at least they could state this more honestly and stop couching it as greater consumer benefit.
What is really going on here is they are afraid of the "hit single" that sells the album problem. That's scarey territory for them because marketing a whole suite of songs rather than pushing just one in the public attention is a lot harder EVEN IF all the songs were equally good. It's even more scarey to them when there really is only one good song on the album. So this really rocks the status quo.
Here's what I'd propose as a possible compromise. allow them to bundle songs. suppose you have a hit brittaney singles song. Instead of charging more for that one, release it only as a virtual EP: you have to buy four other "lower value" songs with it for $5. But require that the average price on any bundle is still $1 per song.
Sure that's not as desirable to me as buying exactly what I want for the lowest price. But c'mon lets compromise. There is merit that some songs are worth more than others. THere is merit that uniform pricing really the sales liquid and consumer freindly. We can have something that approximates both. Itunes already has example of this, where certain songs only are available with album purchases. Here we need only generalize the concept album to ala carte selections across artists.
The problem with this idea is not that consumers won't like it, but that to the music compaines thisis not about flexibility but about raising prices.
At least one record company announced yesterday that seteve is now in talk to have variable pricing sometime in the next year. Not a big concession but one he opposed.
Maybe someone could explain why collisions are a serious problem for MD5. Or at least in what instances they are. I can see that in some cases, such as password hashing this could be a problem. But for many other uses I don't see what harm a collision has. Maybe I misunderstand but as I understand it MD5s are normally used in a checksum manner to sign or provide a fingerprint of a document. If you have an original document and compute it's MD5 then it can match some certified MD5 check sum. If someone were to generate a fake document they coul dnot design it to match the MD5 fingerprint. They could create some bit of gibberish that did match it but not a document that was useful as a forgery.
I guess if one were trying to deliberately pedal gibberish, like say if you were the RIAA trying to destabilize a torrent net then that would be all you care about. But for more general issues I don't get it.
Or is it now possible to generate a collision that also contains some intentional content like a binary program or source code or bank statement. That woul dbe be bad.
It seems like even in the case of gibberish generation that some simple hacks could extend the useful life of this. For example, if you were to MD5 a whole document and then MD5 the concatenation of every other byte in the document, it woul dbe pretty hard to find two collisions that had that property simulateously. Sure I wont doubt there are better ways to hash something than adding hacks to MD5. I'm just saying that it seems like a simple hack might well be good enough to extend its useful lifespan for passwords and file shareing.
But I invite you to explain to me why I'm wrong.
This may not be such a thing as chicken and egg. Maybe it's jut that people like 2-D TV. As has been noted many times, esp in regard to the ipod, video+audio is not always superior to video only. Stereo graphic books have been around for 200 years and they did not take over regular books. 3-d movies have not taken over regular movies. Holograms have not take over photographs.
When I wear a pair of Crystal-eyes doing anything elese with my computer or in the room is prohibitive. Somethings just work better as 2-d experiences. Our brains understand that not everything in the 2-d picture should be in focus. But in 3-d everything shoul dbe in focus if we focus our eyes on it--but that won't happen here. only some of this will be in focus so it's going to be mighty strange for our brains.
Is a microsoft patch anything like one of those Nicotine patches that help you stop smoking? If so I wonder if my health care will cover it. I'd like to slap one of those on asses of my co-workers and help get them off their addiction to microsoft.
I guess one might consider Linux to be sort of a methadone. Something that hels you with your cravings for the bad stuff, but ultimately leaves you without that satsifying high.
Personally I useto OSX, but I'm not addicted. I could stop anytime I want to. I just don't want to that's all. Now excuse me while I watch the Genie effect a few times before I send this.
The first sign the Fed's are listening to you is when they give you a nice small bust of lenin for your mantle peice. That's exactly what the British did to the russian ambassador back in the post world-war two era. They gave him a a gift of a small statue and inside it they had mounted a corner cube which is a passive device that enhances the retro-reflection of microwaves beamed at it. (read about it is Peter Wright's (banned in UK) book Spycatcher--wright was the science officer for MI5 and inventor of the technique)
The second sign is when you feel toasty warm and the chair feels cold. In the 70's and 80's the carter and reagan administrations were perpetually complaining that the level of microwave energy measured inside the US embassy exceeded the OSHA limits for exposure. Eventually the US built a new embassy with enhanced shielding. UNfortunately the Soviet's put listening devices into the bricks. The embassy had to be knocked down and rebuilt. Of course, peter wright did exactly the same thing to the Soviet embassy in canada. Each night he snuck into the construction site and pulled wires up the inside of the walls to his microphones in specially made window sills. The soviet's learned about it from a mole in MI5 and had to build a second interior wall so that no rooms were near the windows.
Doppler microwave spying is quite old. As is laser vibrometry on windows.
Of course if apple succeeds then the RIAA can now extend their content-tax to the the 3-rd party vendors too. "they are profiting off our content being served so they should pay the RIAA too".
This has loads of implications:
1) longer lived satellites, which by weight are 50% fuel
2) heavier payloads for rockets.
3) smaller more robust rockets--no more shuttle fuel tank explositions
4) launch the ISS in 10x fewer launches, making pH of acidified atmosphere 1 pH unit higher, closer to breathable.
4) ten times fewer mobile ballistic missiles to hide and still be able to destroy the earth
5) perhaps a return trip from mars.
6) my personal rocket car will get better fuel milage than my hummer.
7) New distance record for rocket propelled pumpkin toss
8) Jet pack, baby!
By the way, When will these be available for my este's rocket and bong lighter ?
Your brain learns both by creating connections and by deleting them. If you create to many new connections you can't thnk straight. Everything gets too connected and you can't resolve your thoughts. You have to prune nodes to be able to think effciently and to focus.
Thus your comment is right on.
Clearly the only solultion is to first smoke loads of weed to build up your brains connecitons, and then huff gasoline to prune them back to a useful level. Then you will be a super genius.
Worked for me.
Unless you are a poultry worker or otherwise handle wild fowl you are not at risk. This disease is spread bird to man but not man to man.
If a farmer wants to protect his livestock from being destroyed he's being nuaghty but he's not directly endangering that many people in that single act. It's stupid and socially irresponsible. But it's also not something that is that out of line with common practices in other areas.
There are a variety of zoonotic diesaases that can be transmitted to animal handlers and we don't panic over those. Most Flu's in fact come from Bird's via pigs. And many of those, unlike bird flu, can be transmitted from man to man.
There's loads of prarie dog and mouse diseases with high fatality rates in human's like Yserina Pestis or Hanta Virus. Yet we don't all wear bunny suits when we put out mouse traps in your houses. The people who vaccum prarie dog warrens to transplant them are actying just as rashly. Pox viruses can be caught from animals and have killed more humans than all viruses in histroy combined.
Yet we don't panic over these. This is all rubbish except to the poultry industry workers and owners. Not that the farmer's should not be prudent and do the right thing and slaughter their animals. But they have a right to ask not for an over reaction or excess culling.
Since when is water free? Not the kind you drink in town. Maybe if you ladel some out of the mississippi. Even well water is not free--you bought it when you bought the land. the only free water is rain.
the price is interesting too. I get a 30 min video with aac audio for $2. compare that to a 3 minute song for $1 or 45 minute album for $10. it makes the audio seem like a ripoff in terms of bits/dollar. I wonder how they can afford to deliver that much material and bandwidth for so little expense?
on the otherhand in terms of sheer bits/dollar a pvr+ cable delivers a lot more if you are not selective. of course you don't have the option of commercial free versions of broadcast video on cable.
By focusing on my comment about 30 fold you are missing the point. Actually your numbers sort of help make the point. It is not going to require a 30 fold increase to make online campaigning significant. it will require much less than that. The point is that it's already grown 30 fold so it has the potential to grow enough that it becomes the dominant medium. to do that does not require 30 fold growth be realized. But that is the current growth rate so it's going to get to a significant level quickly.
That said levaing this loophole open allows all sorts of shenanigans. For example one might think that the internet is a pull medium not a push medium so one can't really bother me with so many ads. But imagine the following ad:
WIN A FREE IPOD: just send get 5 more freinds to sign up and send campaign literature to five of their freinds!
Or
WIN A FREE IPOD: hold a dean for america block party.
That is going to be push advertising at it's very best and targeted form. And that kind of quality media will easily soak up the bux.
But it can get even more unethical. Imagine linked buys. Imagine compaines that try to steer clickers to their web media with purchases of advertising outside the internet. Say a company puts up a billboard and that says
GW Bush he's for america and he's for you. GO to xxx.com and enter "GW Bush" for a free cheesburger coupon.
Now this company gets to charge huge dollars for their clicks and also gets high dollars because of the hich click rate. They cost a lot because their overhead is higher. But it's still considered internet media purchases since the candidate had nothing to do with buying the Cillboard--that was corporate advertising for a web site. Wink Wink.
So now we have internet bucks leaking back into conventional media. And it just snow balls from there. How many columnists write on both the internet and paper. Many papers even connect their print/online advertising media: advertise in one and you get a free ad in the other.
So it comes down to a tension between two public goods: the right of free speech and equal access to election offices. the courts have many times decided that free speech means you can say what you want, but you can't always say it where and when you want, and it doesn't mean you can't be arrested after you say it. You just can't be stopped pre-emptively with very limited exceptions (imminent danger arguments).
For example, Presidential Eugene Debs was put in prison for treason under the sedition act (the act the patriot act was modeled on) for speakling ill of the president and munition maufacturers during a time of war. That was specifically called out in the sedition act as treason. So you free speech defintely is not free of consequences and limitations. (by the way that law existed for more than half the duration of this nation so it's not a brief abberation). More recently we have the phenomena of razoe wire enclosed "free speech zones" at presidential rally's. Objecitonable but legal. More benignly if you start ranting in the middle of your favorite restaurant or the senate floor you will be tossed out if not arrsested. You cant just speak when you want to.
So restrictions of money-as-speech are certainly not an infringement of free-speech since that goes more to opportunity than to content. Content is freely allowed, opportunity is not. thus campaign spending limits are not in conflict with free speech.
I wonder if some bacteria will evolve the ability to eat this stuff. it is carbon after all. One might argue that they don't eat diamonds either (or maybe they do just slowly). But it's a different material and carbon based instead of silicon. Bacteria have evolved to eat other novel man made structures (e.g. nylon). In fact it's the novelty that makes it attractive to a bacteria since it will be a food source it has no competition for. mmmm.....nanotubes.
See my comment here. it's originally the the B-side of All-of-me sung by Louis Armstrong and shrek baker in 1932.
I wonder if the music genome machine will pull up and other louis armstrong as a match.
Brittanny spears did not write Oops I did it again. She re-recorded a 1932 B-side Louis armstrong recording. That was written in the hey day of 8-count jazz and swing. No wonder it might show some complex structure in a day when 4/4 is all she wrote.
You are obviously mistaking the concept of image sharpening, and image scaling with resolutuion.
Here's an example that may help. If you have an image on screen in photoshop you can apply certain "sharpening" filters that distort the image in ways that make it crisper and give the illusion of more resolution. Of course nothing has actually been added to the picture. it's still the same size on your screen and occupies the same number of pixels it did before. it just "looks" sharper to your eye.
Now imagine that this screen I speak of was in fact the projector and it was say, an svga, projector. The image on this would now look sharper to you. But it is still 800x600. You did not need to go to larger number of pixels to obtain this "sharpening" effect.
Now imagine you scale this image. Now you are increasing the number of pixels but you are not changing the resolution. It's still the same as it was at 800x600. It just occupies more pixels. But it has exactly the same resolution as before.
However when you do that scaling, since it was not an interger multiple of the original there was some aliasing that took place. If you looked at it it will look like crap. So you have to blur the image slightly to "anti-alias" it. This also makes other rough artifacts of the scaling and sharpening appear to vanish. But they only vanish at the expense of actually reducing the resolution below that of the original 800x600 image.
In fact if you were to compress this new image it would actually compress to a data size smaller than the original DVD because the operations you applied actually deleted some of the dynamic range of the pixels and the distortions you introduced were all mathematically predictable. Thus you have in effect reduced the information content of what is on the screen by the scaling and sharpening process.
The link to the "example" you provided in another post really proves all these point. As you can see by looking at it, this is just an example of this photoshop effect. the before and after images have the same number of pixels. If those were SVGA sized images then you have proven in fact that you can sharpen an svga image.
Now you might ask the following if it were really possible to increase resolution over the native source size then why dont all video monitors do this too? Or more to the point do you want your video monitor filtering everything you send it or would it be better to apply those filters only when you want them in the computer and let the display show things as the computer wants. Obviously the latter.
the bottom line is if you start with 800x600 worth of information at a certain dynamic range then you can't increase the resolution by adding more pixels. you can sharpen it if it's blurred in some way but you don't need more pixels for that. 800x600 is sufficient.