> Who?
Probably the Attorney General at the time the Bill becomes law
>is that even relevant
(i) The United Kingdom is and remains a full member of the European Union, right up to the point when it leaves, which is probably two years away.
(ii)The European Convention on Human Rights is independent of the European Union. Unless Parliament repeals the UK Human Rights Act, the ECHR will continue to be relevant.
Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person. That can't be correct - I understand. But it's a good starting point. Then in each case ask whether the police used lethal force to prevent further lethal violence, which is just about the only reason I see to authorize it.
Out.
Hi, AC. Yes, I understood what I wrote. Where the exponent in a function is a constant (in this case 2), that function is polynomial. An exponential function has the parameter in the exponent. The energy in a collision is not an exponential function of the speed. Sheesh, Slashdot used to be populated with geeks!
That's because I'm not offering any such calculation. OT means off-topic, right? I just pointed out that, somewhat like "literally", the term "exponentially" is being abused.
As far as calculation goes, the energy of a collision between two objects at a relative 30 mph is exactly 1.5^2 = 2.25 times larger than one between the same two objects at 20 mph, so yes, of course the damage is much larger. Nothing I wrote should be seen as favouring high speeds, rather just exact use of language.
> exponentially
Nope. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed v:
ke ~ v^2
"Exponentially" means ke ~ C^v for some constant C, which it isn't.
I thought this (though I haven't read TFA). My example would be the Enigma Secret, which is a conspiracy of sorts. There was a startling fact involving hundreds of people, and yet it was *decades* before the truth was revealed.
And then there's the whole class of ideographic allusions, somewhat like puns but with no analogue in an alphabetic written language. The character chosen to match to a particular word can carry hidden meaning within it. See for instance Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. Although many of those racial and ethnic slurs have been eliminated, it would be really hard (and counter-productive, and wrong) to try to remove that aspect of the written language.
> What problems did you encounter when trying ReadCube for Windows in Wine?
My dear fellow, I didn't go that far off the beaten track! On clicking "Get ReadCube", I got a page that said (I kid you not) "Aw, shucks, ReadCube is not available for your platform".
Aw, shucks!?? WTF, I didn't come here to be talked to in that tone of cyber-voice.
As I said, BZZZZT!
I recommend everyone to read J. Furman's judgment: it's crystal clear, and a pleasure to understand.
The argument establishes that what Baidu is engaged in is speech, not advertising or anything, I think these two quotes (or quotes of quotes) sum everything up beautifully:
'Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid,'" the Court explained, "one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 'what not to say.'"
As the Supreme Court has explained, "[t]he First Amendment does not guarantee that . . . concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole . . . will go unquestioned in the marketplace of ideas."
You get to my age, some things in movies are almost as real as what really happened:)
However, this discussion on PPRuNe suggests that I didn't make it up. Several professional pilots are on there saying that it's their normal practice.
Before anyone points it out, I can see that the thread is ten years old, and it may very well be that modern CVRs aren't using 30 minute magnetic tape loops.
Nobody seems to have mentioned that *pilots* would/might resist the streaming of flight data to the ground. As I understand it, there's a button in the cockpit which erases the flight deck voice recordings, and that button is one of the first things that the captain presses when the plane has landed.
What's said on the flight deck, stays on the flight deck!
Yes, as far as I can see, if you "corner" a market in BitCoin then you can control its price. A BitCoin, like a dollar or a diamond, is worth exactly what someone will pay you for it.
There was a similar flurry about virtual goods in Second Life, I vaguely recall. Back on topic, is anyone alleging that the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto has cornered the market? If there is a real concern that the bitcoin architect could bring the edifice crashing down, I'd say that that was a good reason to stay well outside the said edifice.
... are in the business of talking up BTC, aren't they? The principle of crypto "currency" might be somewhat transformative, but I haven't yet seen any scenario in which BTC or any of the others would "fundamentally transform the economy".
@E-Rock
Why do I never have mod points when someone cuts to the heart of the matter?
What will be the public benefit of knowing the meatspace ID and location of the bitcoin architect? None. +1 Insightful at the very least.
Well, it's more like that the early miners of bitcoin, including its inventor, *made* something that you (and several others) now want. He didn't amass money, he made something difficult (read: impossible) to forge, that now has a real-world value. Think of it like artwork.
I don't understand why anyone wants to know who Satoshi 'bitcoin' Nakamoto is. How will you be better off if you know?
That ratio is taken into account in the calculations presented in DeepSeaNews, see above, so the infeasible volume of water needing to be processed remains. Sorry.
I submit a proof for evolution, by which I mean the fact of and explanation for mutability of species.
We will proceed by observation.
1. Life forms have offspring. 2. When those offspring are the result of sexual reproduction, they vary amongst themselves and from their parents in some respects. 3. More offspring are germinated/spawned/hatched/born than survive to reproductive maturity. 4. Variations exhibited by offspring are in some respects heritable. 5. Some heritable variations will make a certain individual offspring marginally more likely to breed successfully. 6. Heritable variation is passed between generations by means of the deoxyribose nucleic acid molecules known as chromosomes.
The first five observations, which are not reasonably refutable, lead one inevitably to the conclusion commonly known as "the survival of the fittest", though note that it is breeding success rather than actual survival which is enjoyed by the fittest; barren survivors don't come into the calculation.
When observation 6 and our detailed understanding of genetic heritability is added, it becomes perfectly _inevitable_ that a breeding population will change its heritable characteristics (i.e. EVOLVE) to fit its environment.
When populations are divided, observation 2 means that subsequent changes cause the two populations to diverge in their heritable characteristics, particularly if the populations are subjected to different environmental challenges or opportunities.
Sufficient genetic divergence then results in the appearance of different species, by which we mean a population with sufficiently different characteristics that a good taxonomist *says* they're separate species, or perhaps (given point 6) that chromosomal differences make interbred offspring non-viable or infertile. Q.E.D. ~~~~~~~~ I genuinely would like to know in what ways a creationist might argue against the above, if by creationism we mean immutability of all species created by $DEITY. If creationism is reduced only to special pleading for Homo sapiens, as being created in God's image, perhaps, then the debate is somewhat altered.
> many other data sets are expensive to regenerate...
Or maybe impossible to regenerate (for certain values of impossible). I remember reading a classified technical report (dating from the 1940s) related to military life-jacket development, wherein the question arose as to whether a particular design would reliably turn an unconscious person face-up in the water. The experimental design used was to dress some servicemen (sailors, possibly, but I don't recall) in the prototype design, anaesthetise them and drop them in a large body of water, checking for face-down floaters to disprove the null hypothesis. Somehow, I don't think that those data are going to be regenerated any time soon. I hope to God not, anyway.
I took the waypoint info from his tracking map and stuffed it into a spreadsheet. Synthesizing the vertical speed indications, it seems Mr Trappe may have had problems controlling his altitude: the maximum descent rate was over 600 fpm when approaching the New Brunswick coast, during a descent from 19,835 ft to just 968 ft in fifty minutes. Having bobbed back up to over 15,000 ft he again descended over the sea, this time to just 314 ft above sea level, with the VSI reading -220 fpm over the preceding ten minutes. I'm guessing that that looked like waves coming up pretty fast.
I suspect that his ballast and helium might have been depleted to the extent that he was glad to put down in Newfoundland rather than ditch in the Atlantic. No doubt we'll be told shortly.
Three scientists took the train northwards from England to attend a multi-disciplinary conference in Edinburgh.
Conversation flagged as the journey continued, until some time after crossing the border into Scotland when the social scientist, used to seeing Friesan herds in the south, pointed out some Highland cattle.
"Oh, look", he said, "the cows are brown in Scotland!"
The physicist put down the newspaper and looked out of the window.
"Yes, so I see, but your remark isn't scientific, you know. You can't know that all the cows are brown. What do you think, Bob?"
Bob the mathematician glanced up over his glasses at the grazing cattle.
"Observation shows that, through this window, at least one side of some bullocks in Scotland appears brown".
As AC points out, I WAS talking in my first reply about whether or not SCOG could be said to own the code, not on the fact of copying or derivation from anywhere.
I'd add another point to your list of So:
-Even if they owned the code and even if some lines of it were infringed and even if Novell's waiver doesn't hold, SCOG went on distributing *the same code* under the GPL for years after they started suing folk (IBM, Novell, Autozone, RedHat...).
I've got a licence for the Linux kernel from Caldera/SCOG already. As SCOG's lawyer said in his summing up for the jury trial in Utah, SCOSource is gone and it can't be resurrected. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100326184700459
Slashdot Mirror
hmm. The first words should have been </sarcasm> but Slashdot consumed the markup.
, I guess. But it *is* why thousands of USAns come to Britain and goggle at the Crown Jewels, etc.
> Who?
Probably the Attorney General at the time the Bill becomes law
>is that even relevant
(i) The United Kingdom is and remains a full member of the European Union, right up to the point when it leaves, which is probably two years away.
(ii)The European Convention on Human Rights is independent of the European Union. Unless Parliament repeals the UK Human Rights Act, the ECHR will continue to be relevant.
Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person. That can't be correct - I understand. But it's a good starting point. Then in each case ask whether the police used lethal force to prevent further lethal violence, which is just about the only reason I see to authorize it.
Out.
Hi, AC. Yes, I understood what I wrote. Where the exponent in a function is a constant (in this case 2), that function is polynomial. An exponential function has the parameter in the exponent. The energy in a collision is not an exponential function of the speed. Sheesh, Slashdot used to be populated with geeks!
You can brush up yourself, at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialGrowth.html
That's because I'm not offering any such calculation. OT means off-topic, right? I just pointed out that, somewhat like "literally", the term "exponentially" is being abused.
As far as calculation goes, the energy of a collision between two objects at a relative 30 mph is exactly 1.5^2 = 2.25 times larger than one between the same two objects at 20 mph, so yes, of course the damage is much larger. Nothing I wrote should be seen as favouring high speeds, rather just exact use of language.
> exponentially
Nope. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed v:
ke ~ v^2
"Exponentially" means ke ~ C^v for some constant C, which it isn't.
I thought this (though I haven't read TFA). My example would be the Enigma Secret, which is a conspiracy of sorts. There was a startling fact involving hundreds of people, and yet it was *decades* before the truth was revealed.
And then there's the whole class of ideographic allusions, somewhat like puns but with no analogue in an alphabetic written language. The character chosen to match to a particular word can carry hidden meaning within it. See for instance Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. Although many of those racial and ethnic slurs have been eliminated, it would be really hard (and counter-productive, and wrong) to try to remove that aspect of the written language.
> What problems did you encounter when trying ReadCube for Windows in Wine?
My dear fellow, I didn't go that far off the beaten track! On clicking "Get ReadCube", I got a page that said (I kid you not) "Aw, shucks, ReadCube is not available for your platform". Aw, shucks!?? WTF, I didn't come here to be talked to in that tone of cyber-voice. As I said, BZZZZT!
Yup, me too. But mostly because ReadCube is "available for both Mac and PC", i.e. no Linux. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
I recommend everyone to read J. Furman's judgment: it's crystal clear, and a pleasure to understand.
The argument establishes that what Baidu is engaged in is speech, not advertising or anything, I think these two quotes (or quotes of quotes) sum everything up beautifully:
You get to my age, some things in movies are almost as real as what really happened :)
However, this discussion on PPRuNe suggests that I didn't make it up. Several professional pilots are on there saying that it's their normal practice. Before anyone points it out, I can see that the thread is ten years old, and it may very well be that modern CVRs aren't using 30 minute magnetic tape loops.
Nobody seems to have mentioned that *pilots* would/might resist the streaming of flight data to the ground. As I understand it, there's a button in the cockpit which erases the flight deck voice recordings, and that button is one of the first things that the captain presses when the plane has landed.
What's said on the flight deck, stays on the flight deck!
Yes, as far as I can see, if you "corner" a market in BitCoin then you can control its price. A BitCoin, like a dollar or a diamond, is worth exactly what someone will pay you for it.
There was a similar flurry about virtual goods in Second Life, I vaguely recall.
Back on topic, is anyone alleging that the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto has cornered the market? If there is a real concern that the bitcoin architect could bring the edifice crashing down, I'd say that that was a good reason to stay well outside the said edifice.
... are in the business of talking up BTC, aren't they? The principle of crypto "currency" might be somewhat transformative, but I haven't yet seen any scenario in which BTC or any of the others would "fundamentally transform the economy".
@E-Rock Why do I never have mod points when someone cuts to the heart of the matter? What will be the public benefit of knowing the meatspace ID and location of the bitcoin architect? None. +1 Insightful at the very least.
> amassed a huge amount of money doing so
Well, it's more like that the early miners of bitcoin, including its inventor, *made* something that you (and several others) now want. He didn't amass money, he made something difficult (read: impossible) to forge, that now has a real-world value. Think of it like artwork.
I don't understand why anyone wants to know who Satoshi 'bitcoin' Nakamoto is. How will you be better off if you know?
That ratio is taken into account in the calculations presented in DeepSeaNews, see above, so the infeasible volume of water needing to be processed remains. Sorry.
A rather terse teacher in Beaulieu
Had a class which was very unreaulieu;
In a fine fit of pique, he resigned, so to spique:
Dear Headmaster,
I'm leaving.
Yours treaulieu,
Beaulieu
I submit a proof for evolution, by which I mean the fact of and explanation for mutability of species.
We will proceed by observation.
1. Life forms have offspring.
2. When those offspring are the result of sexual reproduction, they vary amongst themselves and from their parents in some respects.
3. More offspring are germinated/spawned/hatched/born than survive to reproductive maturity.
4. Variations exhibited by offspring are in some respects heritable.
5. Some heritable variations will make a certain individual offspring marginally more likely to breed successfully.
6. Heritable variation is passed between generations by means of the deoxyribose nucleic acid molecules known as chromosomes.
The first five observations, which are not reasonably refutable, lead one inevitably to the conclusion commonly known as "the survival of the fittest", though note that it is breeding success rather than actual survival which is enjoyed by the fittest; barren survivors don't come into the calculation.
When observation 6 and our detailed understanding of genetic heritability is added, it becomes perfectly _inevitable_ that a breeding population will change its heritable characteristics (i.e. EVOLVE) to fit its environment.
When populations are divided, observation 2 means that subsequent changes cause the two populations to diverge in their heritable characteristics, particularly if the populations are subjected to different environmental challenges or opportunities.
Sufficient genetic divergence then results in the appearance of different species, by which we mean a population with sufficiently different characteristics that a good taxonomist *says* they're separate species, or perhaps (given point 6) that chromosomal differences make interbred offspring non-viable or infertile. Q.E.D.
~~~~~~~~
I genuinely would like to know in what ways a creationist might argue against the above, if by creationism we mean immutability of all species created by $DEITY. If creationism is reduced only to special pleading for Homo sapiens, as being created in God's image, perhaps, then the debate is somewhat altered.
> many other data sets are expensive to regenerate...
Or maybe impossible to regenerate (for certain values of impossible). I remember reading a classified technical report (dating from the 1940s) related to military life-jacket development, wherein the question arose as to whether a particular design would reliably turn an unconscious person face-up in the water. The experimental design used was to dress some servicemen (sailors, possibly, but I don't recall) in the prototype design, anaesthetise them and drop them in a large body of water, checking for face-down floaters to disprove the null hypothesis. Somehow, I don't think that those data are going to be regenerated any time soon. I hope to God not, anyway.
I took the waypoint info from his tracking map and stuffed it into a spreadsheet. Synthesizing the vertical speed indications, it seems Mr Trappe may have had problems controlling his altitude: the maximum descent rate was over 600 fpm when approaching the New Brunswick coast, during a descent from 19,835 ft to just 968 ft in fifty minutes. Having bobbed back up to over 15,000 ft he again descended over the sea, this time to just 314 ft above sea level, with the VSI reading -220 fpm over the preceding ten minutes. I'm guessing that that looked like waves coming up pretty fast. I suspect that his ballast and helium might have been depleted to the extent that he was glad to put down in Newfoundland rather than ditch in the Atlantic. No doubt we'll be told shortly.
Three scientists took the train northwards from England to attend a multi-disciplinary conference in Edinburgh.
Conversation flagged as the journey continued, until some time after crossing the border into Scotland when the social scientist, used to seeing Friesan herds in the south, pointed out some Highland cattle.
"Oh, look", he said, "the cows are brown in Scotland!"
The physicist put down the newspaper and looked out of the window.
"Yes, so I see, but your remark isn't scientific, you know. You can't know that all the cows are brown. What do you think, Bob?"
Bob the mathematician glanced up over his glasses at the grazing cattle.
"Observation shows that, through this window, at least one side of some bullocks in Scotland appears brown".
Moral: question your assumptions.
As AC points out, I WAS talking in my first reply about whether or not SCOG could be said to own the code, not on the fact of copying or derivation from anywhere.
I'd add another point to your list of So:
-Even if they owned the code and even if some lines of it were infringed and even if Novell's waiver doesn't hold, SCOG went on distributing *the same code* under the GPL for years after they started suing folk (IBM, Novell, Autozone, RedHat...).
I've got a licence for the Linux kernel from Caldera/SCOG already. As SCOG's lawyer said in his summing up for the jury trial in Utah, SCOSource is gone and it can't be resurrected.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100326184700459