Ok, they are claiming that they made an object invisible by trying to look at it with light whose wavelength is too long to resolve the object in the first place? I must be missing something here.
Eminent Domain predates the founding of this country. It sucks, especially when it affects you (my great-grandfather's farm was largely seized to build a school), but there are many, many cases where there is indeed a greater good served by it. The discussion really shouldn't be "should we have it?" but "when should we have it?" Eliminating it is not practical.
Perhaps, but it should be a little more difficult to impose. Forcing someone to take fair market value for their home is just plain wrong. "Fair market value" is what I get when I choose to sell my house. When I am forced to sell my house, the government should give me triple fair market value.
"The copyright owner thus has the exclusive right publicly to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work."
I can't sell a used textbook I bought? I can't give away a CD I bought, by giving it as a Christmas present to my brother? I can't lend a co-worker a DVD I own?
If I understand and remember correctly, regulation is the culprit of your current local monopolies.
No. Regulation doesn't cause monopolies. Regulation is a response to industries that are inherently monopoly-prone, so as to mitigate some of the adverse consequences of a monopoly.
Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.
High-energy photons can smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage as well. How do you think too much sunlight can cause skin cancer?
Heat is EM radiation.
Not, it's not. Heat is internal kinetic energy of the particles comprising a system. Heat can be radiated away via thermal radiation, which is EM radiation dependent on the temperature of the body. At temperatures near room temperature, the radiated energy is mostly in the infrared region. At the temperature of a filament of an incandescent bulb, there's a lot of visible light radiated.
EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven
It transfers heat by causing individual molecules to move around when those individual molecules absorb them, no?
The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.
Ok, so the photon energies are not high enough to knock electrons out of their orbits, but what if there's some other mechanism involved? They can clearly induce electrical currents (since that's how the antenna (much shorter than 10-30 cm. btw) receives them), and signal transmission along neurons is an electro-chemical process.
P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.
What does or does not constitute irony is a semantic issue, not a grammar issue.
Besides, what is the "green" cost of a car accident where oil, gas, battery acid, etc. may be spilled, as well as emergency vehicles cranking up and running to the scene, etc?
Don't forget all the trees that need to be cut down to build the coffins.
The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.
This is stupid. The fact that you have a legal right to do something doesn't imply that you have the right to take whatever means are necessary to exercise that right even if you have to break other laws in the process. You have the right to make personal backup copies. Therefore, in the absence of DRM, nobody can sue or arrest you merely for making such copies. That doesn't mean you can break DRM, steal blank DVD-R's, or break into someone's house to use their computer, in order to do it. I have the right to go home at the end of the work day and watch Seinfeld reruns on the local TV station. That doesn't mean I have the right to drive 95 mph in order to get home in time to watch it. Should I try it and tell the cop I'm just exercising my right to watch Seinfeld and then see which legal principle wins out?
The Earth undergoes cycles of climate change. We(humans) have a minimal affect on it.
Your position on this issue is typical of the Republican War on Science, and it's flawed on two counts:
First, it's highly disingenuous of you to summarily dismiss global warning as nothing more than a manifestation of the cyclic climate changes that have occurred over thousands of years, when you know that the climatologists and geologists who have been studying this problem are already keenly aware that such cyclic changes take place, and yet remain undeterred in their conviction that the phenomenon is a real anomaly that doesn't fit the pattern.
Second, if you honestly believe that global warming, by which I mean an anomalous climate change, is even happening, then you don't understand the issue, because nobody, and I mean nobody, who knows anything at all about global warming, disputes that it's happening. It is happening; it's no longer controversial (despite these recently leaked emails); and it's not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether human activity is causing the global warming that is happening. And there is plenty of reason to believe that that it is. I personally like to group the reasons into three broad categories: scientific philosophy, scientific evidence, and scientific consensus.
With regard to scientific philosophy, there is a principle in science commonly known as Occam's Razor, which, simply put, states that the simplest explanation for something is often the best explanation. The converse of this is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the context of global warming, what we know is as follows: Over the past 150 years, mankind has seen a rapid rise in industrialization. Industrialization requires energy. Energy is often obtained through the burning of fossil fuels, which releases "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere, so named because they are opaque to infrared radiation (like the glass walls in a greenhouse) and therefore trap the radiation that would otherwise radiate away from the earth, allowing it to cool. During those same 150 years, the mean temperature on earth has risen sharply in a way that has never been seen before. It seems to me that the simple explanation is that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the the global warming that is happening, and that the alternative hypothesis, that this is one great big coincidence, is the extraordinary claim that ought to require extraordinary proof.
With regard to scientific evidence, in 2005 a study was released in which mathematical models were developed based on the various plausible causes of climate change. These models were then examined under computer simulation to see which models agreed with the data. None of the models agreed with the data, except one, that is: the one based on anthropogenic climate change. That model fit the data almost perfectly.
Finally, there's scientific consensus. In 2004, a meta-study was conducted, examining other studies during the prior ten year period. Not all the studies drew conclusions about the cause of global warming. Some studies dealt with new methods of making historical temperature measurements, and things like that. But the study found approximately 700 peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies demonstrating how human activity is contributing to global warming in one way or another. Now, I say "approximately" 700, because it's difficult for me to remember the precise number of such studies. It's not, however, difficult for me to remember the precise number of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies during that time period demonstrating that human activity has nothing at all to do with global warming. That number is zero. Zilch. Nada. Nill. Bupkiss. There aren't any.
Slashdot Mirror
The SNAFU was turned into bone? You mean, like, petrified?
OK, I'll bite: Why wouldn't you normally recommend this?
Ok, they are claiming that they made an object invisible by trying to look at it with light whose wavelength is too long to resolve the object in the first place? I must be missing something here.
Perhaps, but it should be a little more difficult to impose. Forcing someone to take fair market value for their home is just plain wrong. "Fair market value" is what I get when I choose to sell my house. When I am forced to sell my house, the government should give me triple fair market value.
They're cracking down. As we all know, the problem is uploading, not downloading.
How could you see how it would go if the karma variable were non-working?
WTF does "six sixes" mean? Is that anything like "six sigma"?
"We will be greeted as liberators! With sweets and flowers!"
Are you familiar with the term "rhetorical question"? (Hint: Look at the statement I was responding to.)
That's "...is 100% unambiguous". Hope this helps.
I can't sell a used textbook I bought? I can't give away a CD I bought, by giving it as a Christmas present to my brother? I can't lend a co-worker a DVD I own?
No. Regulation doesn't cause monopolies. Regulation is a response to industries that are inherently monopoly-prone, so as to mitigate some of the adverse consequences of a monopoly.
High-energy photons can smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage as well. How do you think too much sunlight can cause skin cancer?
Not, it's not. Heat is internal kinetic energy of the particles comprising a system. Heat can be radiated away via thermal radiation, which is EM radiation dependent on the temperature of the body. At temperatures near room temperature, the radiated energy is mostly in the infrared region. At the temperature of a filament of an incandescent bulb, there's a lot of visible light radiated.
It transfers heat by causing individual molecules to move around when those individual molecules absorb them, no?
Ok, so the photon energies are not high enough to knock electrons out of their orbits, but what if there's some other mechanism involved? They can clearly induce electrical currents (since that's how the antenna (much shorter than 10-30 cm. btw) receives them), and signal transmission along neurons is an electro-chemical process.
What does or does not constitute irony is a semantic issue, not a grammar issue.
Are you sure about that?
Don't forget all the trees that need to be cut down to build the coffins.
A mod point! A mod point! My kingdom for a mod point!
Oh, how I wish it were only that bad. At least blowing shit up is rooted firmly in science. Now they're the channel of phony-science ghostbusting.
Yea, well, what do you expect? He got an "incomplete" on all his college courses.
...ending the suffering of a child born without a brain ...
A child born without a brain can't possibly be suffering.
Make the 4D pizza in the shape of a Klein Bottle, and the cheese can be both inside and outside in one long piece without breaking the crust.
You're confusing the purpose of the copyrighted work with the purpose of the copyright law.
The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.
This is stupid. The fact that you have a legal right to do something doesn't imply that you have the right to take whatever means are necessary to exercise that right even if you have to break other laws in the process. You have the right to make personal backup copies. Therefore, in the absence of DRM, nobody can sue or arrest you merely for making such copies. That doesn't mean you can break DRM, steal blank DVD-R's, or break into someone's house to use their computer, in order to do it. I have the right to go home at the end of the work day and watch Seinfeld reruns on the local TV station. That doesn't mean I have the right to drive 95 mph in order to get home in time to watch it. Should I try it and tell the cop I'm just exercising my right to watch Seinfeld and then see which legal principle wins out?
The Earth undergoes cycles of climate change. We(humans) have a minimal affect on it.
Your position on this issue is typical of the Republican War on Science, and it's flawed on two counts:
First, it's highly disingenuous of you to summarily dismiss global warning as nothing more than a manifestation of the cyclic climate changes that have occurred over thousands of years, when you know that the climatologists and geologists who have been studying this problem are already keenly aware that such cyclic changes take place, and yet remain undeterred in their conviction that the phenomenon is a real anomaly that doesn't fit the pattern.
Second, if you honestly believe that global warming, by which I mean an anomalous climate change, is even happening, then you don't understand the issue, because nobody, and I mean nobody, who knows anything at all about global warming, disputes that it's happening. It is happening; it's no longer controversial (despite these recently leaked emails); and it's not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether human activity is causing the global warming that is happening. And there is plenty of reason to believe that that it is. I personally like to group the reasons into three broad categories: scientific philosophy, scientific evidence, and scientific consensus.
With regard to scientific philosophy, there is a principle in science commonly known as Occam's Razor, which, simply put, states that the simplest explanation for something is often the best explanation. The converse of this is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the context of global warming, what we know is as follows: Over the past 150 years, mankind has seen a rapid rise in industrialization. Industrialization requires energy. Energy is often obtained through the burning of fossil fuels, which releases "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere, so named because they are opaque to infrared radiation (like the glass walls in a greenhouse) and therefore trap the radiation that would otherwise radiate away from the earth, allowing it to cool. During those same 150 years, the mean temperature on earth has risen sharply in a way that has never been seen before. It seems to me that the simple explanation is that the burning of fossil fuels is causing the the global warming that is happening, and that the alternative hypothesis, that this is one great big coincidence, is the extraordinary claim that ought to require extraordinary proof.
With regard to scientific evidence, in 2005 a study was released in which mathematical models were developed based on the various plausible causes of climate change. These models were then examined under computer simulation to see which models agreed with the data. None of the models agreed with the data, except one, that is: the one based on anthropogenic climate change. That model fit the data almost perfectly.
Finally, there's scientific consensus. In 2004, a meta-study was conducted, examining other studies during the prior ten year period. Not all the studies drew conclusions about the cause of global warming. Some studies dealt with new methods of making historical temperature measurements, and things like that. But the study found approximately 700 peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies demonstrating how human activity is contributing to global warming in one way or another. Now, I say "approximately" 700, because it's difficult for me to remember the precise number of such studies. It's not, however, difficult for me to remember the precise number of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies during that time period demonstrating that human activity has nothing at all to do with global warming. That number is zero. Zilch. Nada. Nill. Bupkiss. There aren't any.
Plus, for some problems it's much easier to verify an answer than to come up with it
Yes. They're called "NP Complete" problems.