Are they? IANAL, but my understanding is that one of the intent of injunctions is to get companies to pay legal expenses in some way related to the thing the injunction is against. It doesn't _necessarily_ claim that Rearden owns a portion of the films, it may only be to prevent Disney from continuing to profit from them until they have paid the fees they should have originally paid to Rearden for the use of the software, plus some kind of legal penalty (especially if the violation is egregious as Rearden claims.)
Unfortunately TFA isn't very clear on exactly what they're asking for. "Besides an injunction, Rearden also demands actual damages and profits attributed to infringement." "Profits" could be anything from the standard licensing fee (whatever that is) to a few percent from the box office.
Certainly Musk might end up being the first person to get a practical vacuum tube transportation network working, but crediting him with developing the idea himself seems a bit much.
But given a sufficient number of solar panels we only need to store enough for about 12 hours. 4 trillion / (365 * 2) = about 5.5 billion kWh, or 5.5 trillion Wh.
There are 1,000,000 mm^2 / m^2 so that would be 9.4 million m^2, and there are about 2.59 million meters per square mile, so 9.4 million / 2.59 million = 3.6 square miles.
So in order to get in down to one square mile you'd need a stack of phones four deep. This phone happens to be 129 mm high, so a stack of 4 would be 516 mm, or about 1 foot, 8 inches.
On the one hand you'd also need a lot of infrastucture to support those batteries which would also take up some area. However i'm also pretty sure that connecting over 15 billion phones in series would be far from the most efficient way to get the required battery storage.
So i understand that in order to "fully reconstruct" the state of the qubit you need a "side channel" to transmit the classical data about the original state. This supposedly means that superluminal communication is impossible.
However can you not even tell that quantum teleportation has taken place at all until the classical information arrives and tells you it happened? If you can't observe that anything has changed at all until someone else tells you it happened it seems to be a bit of a sham.
However if you _can_ tell that something happened, even if you can't be sure what exactly happened, why can't they send up two different stacks of entangled particles and just watch to see where the next teleportation happens? If it happens in stack A, then it's a 0, if it happens in stack B, it's a 1. You now have a binary communication channel and can just throw away the classical measurement.
What are the odds that Facebook will do a lot of free/discounted promotion for Ready Player One in 2018 in the hope of making the movie a hit and in the process giving the popularity of VR a shot in the arm? (Assuming they haven't already dropped the Oculus by that point of course.)
The math on this wasn't making any sense to me, an 18% or 32% wage increase (depending on whether you count one or both increases) ought to more than compensate for a 9% decrease in hours. So i dug through TFA a little and eventually found this:
"Seattle data show - even in simple first differences - that payroll expenses on workers earning under $19 per hour either rose minimally or fell as the minimum wage increased from $9.47 to $13 in just over nine months."
So they're including people making more than the new minimum wage, up to 46% more, in their calculations. Given the discrepancy noted above it seems likely that the higher wage employees are bearing the brunt of the reduction in hours
Most likely the wage increase helped the people it was directly targeted at but had a negative impact on others who were making above minimum wage but not enough above the minimum to escape the "low-wage" classification.
Maybe we _should_ retrain all those people as middle managers, and have them supervise the people who claim that eliminating low skill jobs is always a good thing. The economy will be saved, they'll be miserable, and the rest of us will all get a nice dose of schadenfreude!
Yes, other people have already said that in this very thread, and we've already had a productive conversation about the nature of US vs non-US video feeds. And then you come in here 12 hours later and repeat stuff that's already been said. Maybe you should just try to get over it and get on with your life. No-one made you read the fucking comments.
Okay, that is useful information to have. I had no idea specific channels could be blocked for non-US users, i've only heard about that for things like Netflix before. If the original poster had said "Here are alternate links for non-US users who can't view the original" i wouldn't have had any issue with it. Given their phrasing however i'm not sure if that was actually their original intent.
No, i make it sound like i can watch the videos for free on YouTube on the creator's channel, so why go out of my way to watch the same content on a different channel that's also on YouTube?
If they wanted to provide some non-YouTube option for viewing the videos that might be understandable, but what's the point in just linking to a different YouTube video? If HBO has made it freely available somewhere else that isn't YouTube why don't you tell us where that is, instead of complaining about people going to YouTube?
Is it really necessary to redirect people to other channels trying to profit off of clips from something HBO already made available for free on YouTube? I'm all in favor of getting around stupid restrictions about viewing content, but there aren't actually any restrictions to get around here.
If you want to skip straight to the part on the Coal economy, go here. (And it's not "more complete", because again, it's just a subset of the original video.)
If you want to skip straight to the part about the cease and desist letter, go here.
If gay marriage is "no big deal" then why do you care about these other things?
"suddenly gay marriage is going to be taught in schools"
Why? Is straight marriage taught in school? Of course the people against LGBT rights have made such a big stink about the issue for so long that it will probably be covered in history classes, but that's their own fault. We do want to teach children about reality right?
"children will be taught that it's normal"
If you "don't care" then what's wrong with this? Finding out gay people exist didn't suddenly make me gay. Growing up in a world mostly populated by straight people didn't make gay people straight.
You can't consistently argue that you don't care if gay people get married while also arguing for a grand conspiracy to keep children from finding out gay people exist.
From the description in the blurb the "Sleep as Android" app will do all that for free, or $4 if you want to unlock extra features, and it's been around since... 2011 or so? And i'm sure there are other apps around that do similar things. I can't really understand why there was $42 million of demand, or why given that money they couldn't accomplish what others have done on presumably shoestring budgets.
We're not talking taxing with the intent to make them unobtainable, we're talking taxing like the taxes on cigarettes.
Yes, some people will still be unable to afford them, and they may still turn to crime as a result, but the operative word is "still". I don't expect this solution to fix everything for everyone, it will just make things better overall.
Hopefully the elimination of possible criminal penalties and (ideally) the reduction of the stigmatization would make it easier for people in that situation to seek help. Especially if the people running the stores were trained to spot people in trouble and encourage them to get help. Ideally employees would get bonuses for convincing people to get help, not based on the amount of product sold. The goal of such stores ought to be to sell as little as possible, which is why it would be better for them to be federally operated rather than by a corporation that would seek to encourage as much drug use by as many people as possible.
Just another sign that we ought to legalize _all_ drugs, not just marijuana.
Aside from the big three (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) they ought to be available only from stores licensed by either the state or the Feds (like liquor stores in some states) but you should be able to get whatever drugs you want from those stores. But those drugs should be regulated for quality and they should be heavily taxed, with the proceeds used for education, health care, and detox centers. (Even with taxes the price will probably remain comparable to current values once the overhead of having to circumvent the police/military is taken into account.)
Yes, some people will become addicted and their lives will be ruined, and some people will die. But we have proven over and over again that you can't _force_ people to live responsibly if they don't want to. We can try to educate people when they're young, and the detox centers will be there for people who've gotten into trouble and want to get their lives straightened out. Even so, there will still be those who are unable or unwilling to control their impulses, and that's sad. But criminalization has ruined far too many lives, too often those who aren't even involved, and wasted way too much government money while putting way too much money in the pockets of those benefiting from the illegal drug trade.
We got ahold of a copy of that (or something very similar) in my computer lab in High School. I believe it was the first lab, so that would have been either '92 or '93. I remember discussing the fractal methods it claimed to use to accomplish such extreme compression.
We tested it out, and were both amazed and suspicious when it seemed to work. But as soon as we tried copying the "compressed" file to another machine and it failed we knew something was up, and it didn't take long after that to figure out what was really going on.
There's a lot of excellent suggestions already, but here are a couple i haven't seen yet:
"Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge. A 2006 book imagining a future of autonomous cars, wearable computers, mass-digitization of knowledge, augmented reality, gig economies, and mass surveillance to combat rampant acts of terrorism. I know it's not the job of SF to actually predict the future, but it's a bit eerie how many things he included that are on the verge of happening now.
"Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P Hogan. Uses the concept of post-scarcity to enable an entertaining socialist/libertarian utopia set on Humanity's first off-world colony, and the ideological conflict that occurs when Earth makes contact again. If you're a libertarian or socialist it's an entertaining escapist fantasy, and if you're not it's interesting to pick apart the problems with implementing such a system in the real world. (This is from before the author was attacked by brain-eaters and went a bit loony.)
The Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold. A space opera series that spans an entire generation in a believable way. The first book, "Shards of Honor" was a little rough and the last couple were clearly written under pressure from her publisher, but the two dozen or so novels and short stories in between feature some brilliant writing and (mostly) subtle humor to go with the battles, adventure, espionage, and mysteries. It also includes occasional speculation about the societal impact of "uterine replicators" and other advanced medical technology.
Another important aspect to "Citizen of the Galaxy" is the emphasis that each of those societies were different for a reason. Each of them had come up with rules, both official and unofficial, which allowed them to survive and prosper in their environment. None of them had necessarily found the _best_ solutions, but they'd found solutions that worked well enough for them. It's important to learn that context matters. You can't just ignore a rule because it seems stupid to you unless you truly understand why that rule existed in the first place, and you can't take rules that worked in one situation and blindly apply them to an entirely different situation.
(This is perhaps something to keep in mind before reading just one or two Heinlein books and deciding based on the society of the protagonists that Heinlein was a fascist or a hippie or a communist or a libertarian or a cannibal.)
How did you arrive at those numbers? Was it just based on the statements of "more than 20 employees" and "examined 215 claims"?
If that is the case why are you assuming that the 215 claims were against 215 different employees?
The article doesn't seem to say, and i certainly don't know it for a fact myself, but i would suspect that many of the people who committed harassment serious enough to get fired probably harassed more than one person, and thus were the focus of more than one claim.
And because those issues have been identified we have a technological way to address then. Most directly by dialysis machines, which would be cheaper and easier than what they're proposing here.
A year of dialysis treatments costs $72,000 according to Google. At three sessions per week setting up a similar treatment with the described transfusions would cost $1,248,000.
Of course being on dialysis really sucks, but i doubt that getting three transfusions a week would be much fun either.
Of course what they're proposing is that there is some benefit to young blood above and beyond better filtering. And if there is we'll figure it out pretty soon and it will be available as a treatment, probably in some form that's much more convenient (and probably much cheaper) than either transfusions or dialysis.
It's _possible_ there might be some effect from this process, but a business model based on the idea sounds like an attempt to milk as much money as they can before it all falls apart.
Either further tests by researchers will prove that the perceived effect was a mistake or due to something besides the blood itself, or they'll figure out what the mechanism is and they'll develop a means to synthesize whatever component of the blood causes it. Which means you'll be able to get the treatment without paying thousands of dollars to be a high-tech vampire.
Until then they're counting on the fact that it _sounds_ plausible to a layman, and also probably that some really rich people _like_ the idea of sucking the life out of poor people in a much more literal manner than they can usually get away with.
I'm entirely unsympathetic to movie studios' distress over the idea that consumers are using the tools available to make informed choices. However if Rotten Tomatoes is able to sink movies with bad reviews why are Michael Bay's Transformers movies still a thing that exists?
Slashdot Mirror
Are they? IANAL, but my understanding is that one of the intent of injunctions is to get companies to pay legal expenses in some way related to the thing the injunction is against. It doesn't _necessarily_ claim that Rearden owns a portion of the films, it may only be to prevent Disney from continuing to profit from them until they have paid the fees they should have originally paid to Rearden for the use of the software, plus some kind of legal penalty (especially if the violation is egregious as Rearden claims.)
Unfortunately TFA isn't very clear on exactly what they're asking for. "Besides an injunction, Rearden also demands actual damages and profits attributed to infringement." "Profits" could be anything from the standard licensing fee (whatever that is) to a few percent from the box office.
"The hyperloop, an ultrafast method of travel first developed by Musk in 2013"
By "first developed" you presumably mean "applied some minor tweaks and a 'cool' name to a basic concept that's been around for over two centuries"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Certainly Musk might end up being the first person to get a practical vacuum tube transportation network working, but crediting him with developing the idea himself seems a bit much.
Okay, let's do some Fermi math.
The US uses about 4 trillion kWh/year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But given a sufficient number of solar panels we only need to store enough for about 12 hours. 4 trillion / (365 * 2) = about 5.5 billion kWh, or 5.5 trillion Wh.
Watt hours to mAh is (Wh)*1000/(V) =(mAh): https://milliamps-watts.appspo...
The US generally uses 120 volts for power so that would be 45.6 trillion mAh.
I have on the desk in front of me a phone with a battery that holds about 3000 mAh and when stood on end takes up a surface area of about 618 mm^2.
45.6 trillion mAh / 3000 mAh/phone = 15.2 billion phones * 618 mm^2 = 9.4 trillion mm^2.
There are 1,000,000 mm^2 / m^2 so that would be 9.4 million m^2, and there are about 2.59 million meters per square mile, so 9.4 million / 2.59 million = 3.6 square miles.
So in order to get in down to one square mile you'd need a stack of phones four deep. This phone happens to be 129 mm high, so a stack of 4 would be 516 mm, or about 1 foot, 8 inches.
On the one hand you'd also need a lot of infrastucture to support those batteries which would also take up some area. However i'm also pretty sure that connecting over 15 billion phones in series would be far from the most efficient way to get the required battery storage.
I believe all that math works out?
So i understand that in order to "fully reconstruct" the state of the qubit you need a "side channel" to transmit the classical data about the original state. This supposedly means that superluminal communication is impossible.
However can you not even tell that quantum teleportation has taken place at all until the classical information arrives and tells you it happened? If you can't observe that anything has changed at all until someone else tells you it happened it seems to be a bit of a sham.
However if you _can_ tell that something happened, even if you can't be sure what exactly happened, why can't they send up two different stacks of entangled particles and just watch to see where the next teleportation happens? If it happens in stack A, then it's a 0, if it happens in stack B, it's a 1. You now have a binary communication channel and can just throw away the classical measurement.
What are the odds that Facebook will do a lot of free/discounted promotion for Ready Player One in 2018 in the hope of making the movie a hit and in the process giving the popularity of VR a shot in the arm? (Assuming they haven't already dropped the Oculus by that point of course.)
The math on this wasn't making any sense to me, an 18% or 32% wage increase (depending on whether you count one or both increases) ought to more than compensate for a 9% decrease in hours. So i dug through TFA a little and eventually found this:
"Seattle data show - even in simple first differences - that payroll expenses on workers earning under $19 per hour either rose minimally or fell as the minimum wage increased from $9.47 to $13 in just over nine months."
So they're including people making more than the new minimum wage, up to 46% more, in their calculations. Given the discrepancy noted above it seems likely that the higher wage employees are bearing the brunt of the reduction in hours
Most likely the wage increase helped the people it was directly targeted at but had a negative impact on others who were making above minimum wage but not enough above the minimum to escape the "low-wage" classification.
Will that appy apps are apper appy app guy finally have something relevant to say in response to this?
Maybe we _should_ retrain all those people as middle managers, and have them supervise the people who claim that eliminating low skill jobs is always a good thing. The economy will be saved, they'll be miserable, and the rest of us will all get a nice dose of schadenfreude!
Yes, other people have already said that in this very thread, and we've already had a productive conversation about the nature of US vs non-US video feeds. And then you come in here 12 hours later and repeat stuff that's already been said. Maybe you should just try to get over it and get on with your life. No-one made you read the fucking comments.
Okay, that is useful information to have. I had no idea specific channels could be blocked for non-US users, i've only heard about that for things like Netflix before. If the original poster had said "Here are alternate links for non-US users who can't view the original" i wouldn't have had any issue with it. Given their phrasing however i'm not sure if that was actually their original intent.
No, i make it sound like i can watch the videos for free on YouTube on the creator's channel, so why go out of my way to watch the same content on a different channel that's also on YouTube?
If they wanted to provide some non-YouTube option for viewing the videos that might be understandable, but what's the point in just linking to a different YouTube video? If HBO has made it freely available somewhere else that isn't YouTube why don't you tell us where that is, instead of complaining about people going to YouTube?
Is it really necessary to redirect people to other channels trying to profit off of clips from something HBO already made available for free on YouTube? I'm all in favor of getting around stupid restrictions about viewing content, but there aren't actually any restrictions to get around here.
If you want to skip straight to the part on the Coal economy, go here.
(And it's not "more complete", because again, it's just a subset of the original video.)
If you want to skip straight to the part about the cease and desist letter, go here.
Google won't make the data available to the government at their discretion! That really is tin-foil conspiracy!
Your data will actually be parsed, stored, collated, and be made available to Google's targeted marketing AI to maximize revenue.
The government won't get ahold of the data until they get a secret warrant from a secret court, and _then_ Google will roll over.
If gay marriage is "no big deal" then why do you care about these other things?
"suddenly gay marriage is going to be taught in schools"
Why? Is straight marriage taught in school? Of course the people against LGBT rights have made such a big stink about the issue for so long that it will probably be covered in history classes, but that's their own fault. We do want to teach children about reality right?
"children will be taught that it's normal"
If you "don't care" then what's wrong with this? Finding out gay people exist didn't suddenly make me gay. Growing up in a world mostly populated by straight people didn't make gay people straight.
You can't consistently argue that you don't care if gay people get married while also arguing for a grand conspiracy to keep children from finding out gay people exist.
From the description in the blurb the "Sleep as Android" app will do all that for free, or $4 if you want to unlock extra features, and it's been around since... 2011 or so? And i'm sure there are other apps around that do similar things. I can't really understand why there was $42 million of demand, or why given that money they couldn't accomplish what others have done on presumably shoestring budgets.
We're not talking taxing with the intent to make them unobtainable, we're talking taxing like the taxes on cigarettes.
Yes, some people will still be unable to afford them, and they may still turn to crime as a result, but the operative word is "still". I don't expect this solution to fix everything for everyone, it will just make things better overall.
Hopefully the elimination of possible criminal penalties and (ideally) the reduction of the stigmatization would make it easier for people in that situation to seek help. Especially if the people running the stores were trained to spot people in trouble and encourage them to get help. Ideally employees would get bonuses for convincing people to get help, not based on the amount of product sold. The goal of such stores ought to be to sell as little as possible, which is why it would be better for them to be federally operated rather than by a corporation that would seek to encourage as much drug use by as many people as possible.
Just another sign that we ought to legalize _all_ drugs, not just marijuana.
Aside from the big three (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana) they ought to be available only from stores licensed by either the state or the Feds (like liquor stores in some states) but you should be able to get whatever drugs you want from those stores. But those drugs should be regulated for quality and they should be heavily taxed, with the proceeds used for education, health care, and detox centers. (Even with taxes the price will probably remain comparable to current values once the overhead of having to circumvent the police/military is taken into account.)
Yes, some people will become addicted and their lives will be ruined, and some people will die. But we have proven over and over again that you can't _force_ people to live responsibly if they don't want to. We can try to educate people when they're young, and the detox centers will be there for people who've gotten into trouble and want to get their lives straightened out. Even so, there will still be those who are unable or unwilling to control their impulses, and that's sad. But criminalization has ruined far too many lives, too often those who aren't even involved, and wasted way too much government money while putting way too much money in the pockets of those benefiting from the illegal drug trade.
We got ahold of a copy of that (or something very similar) in my computer lab in High School. I believe it was the first lab, so that would have been either '92 or '93. I remember discussing the fractal methods it claimed to use to accomplish such extreme compression.
We tested it out, and were both amazed and suspicious when it seemed to work. But as soon as we tried copying the "compressed" file to another machine and it failed we knew something was up, and it didn't take long after that to figure out what was really going on.
The extra "s" was part of the encrypted message to our new Russian overlords.
There's a lot of excellent suggestions already, but here are a couple i haven't seen yet:
"Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge. A 2006 book imagining a future of autonomous cars, wearable computers, mass-digitization of knowledge, augmented reality, gig economies, and mass surveillance to combat rampant acts of terrorism. I know it's not the job of SF to actually predict the future, but it's a bit eerie how many things he included that are on the verge of happening now.
"Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P Hogan. Uses the concept of post-scarcity to enable an entertaining socialist/libertarian utopia set on Humanity's first off-world colony, and the ideological conflict that occurs when Earth makes contact again. If you're a libertarian or socialist it's an entertaining escapist fantasy, and if you're not it's interesting to pick apart the problems with implementing such a system in the real world. (This is from before the author was attacked by brain-eaters and went a bit loony.)
The Vorkosigan Saga by Lois McMaster Bujold. A space opera series that spans an entire generation in a believable way. The first book, "Shards of Honor" was a little rough and the last couple were clearly written under pressure from her publisher, but the two dozen or so novels and short stories in between feature some brilliant writing and (mostly) subtle humor to go with the battles, adventure, espionage, and mysteries. It also includes occasional speculation about the societal impact of "uterine replicators" and other advanced medical technology.
Another important aspect to "Citizen of the Galaxy" is the emphasis that each of those societies were different for a reason. Each of them had come up with rules, both official and unofficial, which allowed them to survive and prosper in their environment. None of them had necessarily found the _best_ solutions, but they'd found solutions that worked well enough for them. It's important to learn that context matters. You can't just ignore a rule because it seems stupid to you unless you truly understand why that rule existed in the first place, and you can't take rules that worked in one situation and blindly apply them to an entirely different situation.
(This is perhaps something to keep in mind before reading just one or two Heinlein books and deciding based on the society of the protagonists that Heinlein was a fascist or a hippie or a communist or a libertarian or a cannibal.)
How did you arrive at those numbers? Was it just based on the statements of "more than 20 employees" and "examined 215 claims"?
If that is the case why are you assuming that the 215 claims were against 215 different employees?
The article doesn't seem to say, and i certainly don't know it for a fact myself, but i would suspect that many of the people who committed harassment serious enough to get fired probably harassed more than one person, and thus were the focus of more than one claim.
And because those issues have been identified we have a technological way to address then. Most directly by dialysis machines, which would be cheaper and easier than what they're proposing here.
A year of dialysis treatments costs $72,000 according to Google. At three sessions per week setting up a similar treatment with the described transfusions would cost $1,248,000.
Of course being on dialysis really sucks, but i doubt that getting three transfusions a week would be much fun either.
Of course what they're proposing is that there is some benefit to young blood above and beyond better filtering. And if there is we'll figure it out pretty soon and it will be available as a treatment, probably in some form that's much more convenient (and probably much cheaper) than either transfusions or dialysis.
It's _possible_ there might be some effect from this process, but a business model based on the idea sounds like an attempt to milk as much money as they can before it all falls apart.
Either further tests by researchers will prove that the perceived effect was a mistake or due to something besides the blood itself, or they'll figure out what the mechanism is and they'll develop a means to synthesize whatever component of the blood causes it. Which means you'll be able to get the treatment without paying thousands of dollars to be a high-tech vampire.
Until then they're counting on the fact that it _sounds_ plausible to a layman, and also probably that some really rich people _like_ the idea of sucking the life out of poor people in a much more literal manner than they can usually get away with.
I'm entirely unsympathetic to movie studios' distress over the idea that consumers are using the tools available to make informed choices. However if Rotten Tomatoes is able to sink movies with bad reviews why are Michael Bay's Transformers movies still a thing that exists?