They probably wouldn't be permitted to sell it at all if they sold it as a computer case--the FCC regulates electronic equipment, in particular equipment that is sold commercially.
It probably won't make you go blind or sterile, but it will probably annoy the hell out of some neighbor trying to listen to the radio somehwere.
how many of us here haven't run a computer with the side panel, or the whole case off?
The short answer is: too many. Every time you do that, you may be spoiling someone's radio or TV reception.
Come on, be nice to your neighbors: keep the case closed as much as practical, don't play your stereo at top volume, and don't buy plastic cases for GHz machinery.
I'm going into CS. [...] I was disgusted that we would learn just about NOTHING which would be practical.
Computer Science is not job training. If you want job training, take a CISCO or Microsoft certification class.
A good computer science program will teach you very little that is "practical"; it is expected that you can pick up C++, Java, or x86 assembly language on your own when you are done. If you can't, or if you don't want to, you are enrolled in the wrong field of study.
Indeed, and if we just shot all people with a bacterial infection, bacterial resistance would not be a very big issue either.
And? Are you proposing that? Because I clearly was not.
And, what's worse, people that actually *do* need the antibiotics often stop taking them once they begin to feel better,
Well, gee, that's why I said "with proper isolation", which includes supervision.
I am curious though...can you name me one research project that has conclusively linked feeding animals antibiotics has resulted in antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans? I have not seen any to this point.
I'm sorry, but what does any of what you wrote have to do with anything that I wrote? What's your point? Are you trying to argue that because evolution works by random variation and selection, there is no causal relationship?
If that is what you are trying to argue, it is simply wrong. Antibiotics use causes resistant organisms to become widespread and to become a public health risk. If you use less antibiotics, the risk decreases. This is a causal relationship as strong as any in physics.
In fact, by your reasoning, people would not be responsible for most kinds of acts. After all, shooting a gun also involves just the random bouncing around of gas molecules, it "just so happens" that that takes place in a barrel shaped device that then may often propel a projectile in the direction of a victim.
You could consider that, but it would be wrong. Feeding antibiotics to livestock and giving them to people with viral infections are completely avoidable and they do not result in additional deaths.
It's your illogical attitude of "well, let's take them just to be sure" that's the cause of these problems.
Think about the article that was run on Slashdot a while ago about what happened to the Chinese music industry because of mass piracy. It's not dead, no, but it's nowhere near as productive as the US industry, either.
Productive? In what way? In the sense of generating more forgettable junk than anybody else? There is good music in the US, but, if anything, the US seems to produce less of that relative to its size than other places. And the people who produce good stuff in the US benefit hardly at all from the current system.
Since the subpulses are measured in nanoseconds, that means the beaming region on the pulsar is about that wide.
Even assuming this very simple geometry and mechanism, it only means that they are 60 cm deep in the direction you are looking at them. Perpendicular to the optical axis, they can be much larger.
First of all, it is only "nearly imperceptible subpulses" that are 2ns short, so we are not talking about the entire energy output of the pulsar.
But just as importantly, all that this seems to tell you is that the region from which these subpulses come is less than 2ft thick along the line from here to there, it tells you much less about its area. So, perhaps this is just the signal you see when looking straight at the neutron star and something happens on a surface pacth. The patch could have a much larger diameter than 2ft.
If we only used antibiotics in humans, only when they are clearly warranted (dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin), and with proper isolation of the patients, there would probably not be enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance.
Instead, we feed antibiotics to livestock and hand them out to anybody who asks for them. It's not surprising that that leads to resistance. The consequence is already a lot of disease that would have been treatable otherwise, and it will likely be lots of deaths in the future. And simply researching new antibiotics won't be a solution: they'll become ineffective as quickly as the current crop; this is a race that we are losing.
If you prescribe or take antibiotics unnecessarily, or if you buy meat from animals that have been fed antibiotics, you are responsible for the deaths of others pretty much as if you put a gun to their head; it's just that you are never going to meet the people you killed.
Sure, if you believe that computers and guns are analogous, then your argument is reasonable. Of course, I think that analogy is wrong. Keeping computers open and freely available is a free speech issue, while keeping guns unrestricted and freely available is about the right to bear arms. There is no contradiction between being for free speech while opposing the right to bear arms.
Yes, but other people don't trust their life to your Glock or your ability to use it responsibly.
That's why the choice most people in the world face is "this piece of shit" or no gun at all. And that's probably a choice you will face in the US as well.
First of all, purely mechanical firearms also malfunction for a wide variety of reasons; many electronic devices are far more robust than their mechanical equivalents.
But, furthermore, why does a firearm need to function 100% anyway? If the choice is between no gun because of gun control or a gun that works 95% of the time, which would you pick? If the choice is between guns that kill hundreds of kids in accidents a year an work 100% and guns that don't kill children, what's the right tradeoff? And do you think that a gun that works only 95% of the time is not going to deter a criminal anyway?
Your argument is like people who expect that medicine is error free. It isn't. 25% of the time, it's probably the doctors that kill you if you go in for something serious. You are still way better off to get the treatment than not. And if most malpractice were actually detected and prosecuted, we'd get no medical treatment at all because there would be no doctors left.
Note, however, that Roman concrete had a different composition from the concrete used in modern construction. Modern concrete construction will, for the most part, not survive 2000 years.
But it is being reciprocated. If you get a job offer from a European technology company, you'll probably have no problems getting a work permit. The process usually can even be handled by mail. When I did it, I had to send one short letter with my passport info and a few other items to my future employer--I think it all fit into a standard letter-sized envelope.
You seem to live under the mistaken assumption that the US is handing out H1Bs like candy to anybody who wants one. That's wrong. In order to get an H1B, a US company first needs to make a job offer to a foreign applicant. But unlike the European work permits, that is then followed by often months of lengthy paperwork, database checks, salary checks, and hours of waiting in line at various INS offices and consulates. Along the way, people will run a gauntlet of ill-tempered administrators and legal pitfalls that can result in denial of the application or even exclusion from the US, for no particularly good reason and without recourse. It's one of the most degrading, intrusive, and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures imaginable, topped only by the US green card process, which is even worse.
"Where is money to pay them coming from?" The answer is, the American public and companies. Since I'm the one buying computers, software, etc., and not the poor folks in India, I should be the one getting paid to create the stuff.
Fine, so you are saying: you don't want free trade. Many countries are saying the same thing. But it is the US and its democratically elected government that is pushing most strongly for free trade.
A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
And what do you think people do in the sweat shops of India or China? Sit around and sip tea all day? Americans don't work harder than many people in developing nations. America's wealth and power is a combination of a decent political system, some enlightened policies in the 19th and 20th century, and lucky historical accident. And it is certainly not something anybody generation after generation is entitled to in perpetuity.
Romans or Arabs could make the same statements you do: they worked hard for their wealth and empires, and they lost it, too. And, in fact, your argument is not all that different from all the Arabs that are belly-aching about their lost empire.
Nobody is entitled to wealth, and certainly not because of their ancestry or historical accident. You get what you get. Count yourself lucky that you were born in such a wealthy country, but don't expect it to last--it never does.
Tell you what.... when it's as easy for me to go to another country and work as it is for foreigners to come HERE and work for peanuts....
You think it's easy coming to the US and work? The US has one of the most cumbersome and complex immigration systems in the world. Neither is that anything new--the restrictions started early in the 20th century. While groups that don't have much to lose (migrant workers, refugees, etc.) aren't affected much by that, for skilled foreign labor, those restrictions are real.
Most of Europe? I have to either be independantly wealthy... (be able to prove I can support myself for a given number of months) or have a business to start up. (No.... websites don't count.)
European countries have large percentages of legal foreign workers, more than the US in many cases. Visa requirements and procedures are much simpler and more straightforward.
And the reason it isn't relaxed further is because these agreements are reciprocal and the US doesn't want to relax their requirements any further. I think most Europeans would probably be happy with an arrangement similar to that between the US and Canada.
When I actually CAN 'follow the jobs' the way people from other countries can, we can talk.
I suspect the main reason you "can't" is because you don't meet the requirements. Do you speak French and German fluently? Do you know how to dress for an interview or business meeting in Paris, London, or Berlin? Do you know how to write a resume to send to a Swiss company? Do you know the geography and history of the various European nations? Things like that are important for landing jobs in Europe; merely being a good C/Java hacker and speaking English is not enough. That may not be a good thing, but it isn't protectionism. And the US has lots of equivalent hidden requirements, it's just that we don't notice because we don't see it.
As it is, I'm competing with foreign workers, college educated (at no cost to themselves generally, or they're from one of the few wealthy families in their home region,) who are willing to do the same job for less money because they don't care about having an american standard of living even tho they're living in america, and they aren't as deep in debt as I am from student loans.
Quite right. And you should be angry about that, but not with other governments that provide decent education for their citizens, but with the US government.
It needs to be said again: the visa requirements and work permits between the US and Europe are based on reciprocity, and the sticking point to relaxing them further is US politics. The Europeans really wouldn't mind much--they know that most Americans would neither be able to nor willing to work in Europe anyway, no matter how open the borders become.
Today, I was finally able to corner one of them and ask him what exactly his issue was with Linux. His answer: Indemnity.
Sounds like he was just looking for a pretext.
All our other software vendors provide protection against someone suing us for using their product.
If anybody indemnifies anybody, it's usually the other way around. At least all the Microsoft EULAs I have seen say something like
you agree [...] to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Application
In general, I think anybody who offers a Fortune 50 company protection from lawsuits is a fool or speculating that they'd go bankrupt anyway if that should ever come to court (and you would still get sued).
I also doubt this kind of indemnity would be useful for Linux even if someone offered it. I mean, how often has this come up over the last decade? These kinds of lawsuits seem like such a rare occurrence when it comes to open source software that it just doesn't seem worth worrying about.
"Slashdot said it was OK" ain't gonna hodl up in court. Do yourself a favor and contact an MS licensing rep.
The MS licensing rep isn't going to give any legally binding commitments, he is just going to try to talk people into as many licenses as they can afford by applying just the right amount of arm twisting.
Most OEM versions of 98 were tied to the PC, meaning you couldn't legally move them to another PC.
Companies write all sorts of restrictions into their licenses that wouldn't hold up in court. Do you have any proof that this restriction would hold up?
Altogether, since you are never going to get the licensing rep to resolve an ambiguity in the contract in a legally binding way that's in your favor (at least not for free), talking to him is useless. The best you can get out of an ambiguity is plausible deniability, and, sure, it makes a lot of sense to ask anybody but Microsoft about that.
There is a difference between believing something can exist and observing it. Besides, gas giants orbiting close to a star are not all that well understood (and people used to believe they didn't exist at all), so any kind of data on this is useful.
People get all excited when design companies put such studies together, and I suppose that's the ponit. But realize this: the reason why we don't have gadgets like these yet is not because engineers lack the imagination. It's because real-world products are constrained by engineering considerations: battery life, transmit power, antenna placement, cost, and all that.
So, yes, these kinds of products will eventually appear. They will probably be boxy and more traditional looking because people likely feel silly running around with gadgets that look like sex toys or sunglasses that are appropriate for a three-year-old. And their release date will depend on such mundane factors as when their power consumption will be low enough that they will be usable. What good is a futuristic wrist PDA, after all, if it only runs for 15 minutes?
Slashdot Mirror
It probably won't make you go blind or sterile, but it will probably annoy the hell out of some neighbor trying to listen to the radio somehwere.
The short answer is: too many. Every time you do that, you may be spoiling someone's radio or TV reception.
Come on, be nice to your neighbors: keep the case closed as much as practical, don't play your stereo at top volume, and don't buy plastic cases for GHz machinery.
That's wrong. Aluminum makes a reasonably good shield for RF.
Here is why.
Computer Science is not job training. If you want job training, take a CISCO or Microsoft certification class.
A good computer science program will teach you very little that is "practical"; it is expected that you can pick up C++, Java, or x86 assembly language on your own when you are done. If you can't, or if you don't want to, you are enrolled in the wrong field of study.
Here is a one page fact sheet on human pheromones from a bio class at UIUC. As you can see, this is not exactly news.
And? Are you proposing that? Because I clearly was not.
And, what's worse, people that actually *do* need the antibiotics often stop taking them once they begin to feel better,
Well, gee, that's why I said "with proper isolation", which includes supervision.
I am curious though...can you name me one research project that has conclusively linked feeding animals antibiotics has resulted in antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans? I have not seen any to this point.
Will an FDA press release do?
If that is what you are trying to argue, it is simply wrong. Antibiotics use causes resistant organisms to become widespread and to become a public health risk. If you use less antibiotics, the risk decreases. This is a causal relationship as strong as any in physics.
In fact, by your reasoning, people would not be responsible for most kinds of acts. After all, shooting a gun also involves just the random bouncing around of gas molecules, it "just so happens" that that takes place in a barrel shaped device that then may often propel a projectile in the direction of a victim.
It's your illogical attitude of "well, let's take them just to be sure" that's the cause of these problems.
Productive? In what way? In the sense of generating more forgettable junk than anybody else? There is good music in the US, but, if anything, the US seems to produce less of that relative to its size than other places. And the people who produce good stuff in the US benefit hardly at all from the current system.
Even assuming this very simple geometry and mechanism, it only means that they are 60 cm deep in the direction you are looking at them. Perpendicular to the optical axis, they can be much larger.
But just as importantly, all that this seems to tell you is that the region from which these subpulses come is less than 2ft thick along the line from here to there, it tells you much less about its area. So, perhaps this is just the signal you see when looking straight at the neutron star and something happens on a surface pacth. The patch could have a much larger diameter than 2ft.
Actually, a better analogy might be firing a gun randomly into the street while not looking.
Instead, we feed antibiotics to livestock and hand them out to anybody who asks for them. It's not surprising that that leads to resistance. The consequence is already a lot of disease that would have been treatable otherwise, and it will likely be lots of deaths in the future. And simply researching new antibiotics won't be a solution: they'll become ineffective as quickly as the current crop; this is a race that we are losing.
If you prescribe or take antibiotics unnecessarily, or if you buy meat from animals that have been fed antibiotics, you are responsible for the deaths of others pretty much as if you put a gun to their head; it's just that you are never going to meet the people you killed.
Sure, if you believe that computers and guns are analogous, then your argument is reasonable. Of course, I think that analogy is wrong. Keeping computers open and freely available is a free speech issue, while keeping guns unrestricted and freely available is about the right to bear arms. There is no contradiction between being for free speech while opposing the right to bear arms.
That's why the choice most people in the world face is "this piece of shit" or no gun at all. And that's probably a choice you will face in the US as well.
But, furthermore, why does a firearm need to function 100% anyway? If the choice is between no gun because of gun control or a gun that works 95% of the time, which would you pick? If the choice is between guns that kill hundreds of kids in accidents a year an work 100% and guns that don't kill children, what's the right tradeoff? And do you think that a gun that works only 95% of the time is not going to deter a criminal anyway?
Your argument is like people who expect that medicine is error free. It isn't. 25% of the time, it's probably the doctors that kill you if you go in for something serious. You are still way better off to get the treatment than not. And if most malpractice were actually detected and prosecuted, we'd get no medical treatment at all because there would be no doctors left.
Note, however, that Roman concrete had a different composition from the concrete used in modern construction. Modern concrete construction will, for the most part, not survive 2000 years.
You seem to live under the mistaken assumption that the US is handing out H1Bs like candy to anybody who wants one. That's wrong. In order to get an H1B, a US company first needs to make a job offer to a foreign applicant. But unlike the European work permits, that is then followed by often months of lengthy paperwork, database checks, salary checks, and hours of waiting in line at various INS offices and consulates. Along the way, people will run a gauntlet of ill-tempered administrators and legal pitfalls that can result in denial of the application or even exclusion from the US, for no particularly good reason and without recourse. It's one of the most degrading, intrusive, and cumbersome bureaucratic procedures imaginable, topped only by the US green card process, which is even worse.
Fine, so you are saying: you don't want free trade. Many countries are saying the same thing. But it is the US and its democratically elected government that is pushing most strongly for free trade.
A lot of Americans have worked very hard for a long time to create one of the most powerful economic countries in the world. Why should the rest of the world benefit from that hard work, while we suffer?
And what do you think people do in the sweat shops of India or China? Sit around and sip tea all day? Americans don't work harder than many people in developing nations. America's wealth and power is a combination of a decent political system, some enlightened policies in the 19th and 20th century, and lucky historical accident. And it is certainly not something anybody generation after generation is entitled to in perpetuity.
Romans or Arabs could make the same statements you do: they worked hard for their wealth and empires, and they lost it, too. And, in fact, your argument is not all that different from all the Arabs that are belly-aching about their lost empire.
Nobody is entitled to wealth, and certainly not because of their ancestry or historical accident. You get what you get. Count yourself lucky that you were born in such a wealthy country, but don't expect it to last--it never does.
You think it's easy coming to the US and work? The US has one of the most cumbersome and complex immigration systems in the world. Neither is that anything new--the restrictions started early in the 20th century. While groups that don't have much to lose (migrant workers, refugees, etc.) aren't affected much by that, for skilled foreign labor, those restrictions are real.
Most of Europe? I have to either be independantly wealthy... (be able to prove I can support myself for a given number of months) or have a business to start up. (No.... websites don't count.)
European countries have large percentages of legal foreign workers, more than the US in many cases. Visa requirements and procedures are much simpler and more straightforward.
And the reason it isn't relaxed further is because these agreements are reciprocal and the US doesn't want to relax their requirements any further. I think most Europeans would probably be happy with an arrangement similar to that between the US and Canada.
When I actually CAN 'follow the jobs' the way people from other countries can, we can talk.
I suspect the main reason you "can't" is because you don't meet the requirements. Do you speak French and German fluently? Do you know how to dress for an interview or business meeting in Paris, London, or Berlin? Do you know how to write a resume to send to a Swiss company? Do you know the geography and history of the various European nations? Things like that are important for landing jobs in Europe; merely being a good C/Java hacker and speaking English is not enough. That may not be a good thing, but it isn't protectionism. And the US has lots of equivalent hidden requirements, it's just that we don't notice because we don't see it.
As it is, I'm competing with foreign workers, college educated (at no cost to themselves generally, or they're from one of the few wealthy families in their home region,) who are willing to do the same job for less money because they don't care about having an american standard of living even tho they're living in america, and they aren't as deep in debt as I am from student loans.
Quite right. And you should be angry about that, but not with other governments that provide decent education for their citizens, but with the US government.
It needs to be said again: the visa requirements and work permits between the US and Europe are based on reciprocity, and the sticking point to relaxing them further is US politics. The Europeans really wouldn't mind much--they know that most Americans would neither be able to nor willing to work in Europe anyway, no matter how open the borders become.
Sounds like he was just looking for a pretext.
All our other software vendors provide protection against someone suing us for using their product.
If anybody indemnifies anybody, it's usually the other way around. At least all the Microsoft EULAs I have seen say something like
(this one is taken from here).In general, I think anybody who offers a Fortune 50 company protection from lawsuits is a fool or speculating that they'd go bankrupt anyway if that should ever come to court (and you would still get sued).
I also doubt this kind of indemnity would be useful for Linux even if someone offered it. I mean, how often has this come up over the last decade? These kinds of lawsuits seem like such a rare occurrence when it comes to open source software that it just doesn't seem worth worrying about.
The MS licensing rep isn't going to give any legally binding commitments, he is just going to try to talk people into as many licenses as they can afford by applying just the right amount of arm twisting.
Most OEM versions of 98 were tied to the PC, meaning you couldn't legally move them to another PC.
Companies write all sorts of restrictions into their licenses that wouldn't hold up in court. Do you have any proof that this restriction would hold up?
Altogether, since you are never going to get the licensing rep to resolve an ambiguity in the contract in a legally binding way that's in your favor (at least not for free), talking to him is useless. The best you can get out of an ambiguity is plausible deniability, and, sure, it makes a lot of sense to ask anybody but Microsoft about that.
There is a difference between believing something can exist and observing it. Besides, gas giants orbiting close to a star are not all that well understood (and people used to believe they didn't exist at all), so any kind of data on this is useful.
So, yes, these kinds of products will eventually appear. They will probably be boxy and more traditional looking because people likely feel silly running around with gadgets that look like sex toys or sunglasses that are appropriate for a three-year-old. And their release date will depend on such mundane factors as when their power consumption will be low enough that they will be usable. What good is a futuristic wrist PDA, after all, if it only runs for 15 minutes?