I don't know how valid this is. Rather than focusing on the top rated, how about looking at those close to US figures. If the above poster's figures are correct, US = 6.5, Singapore = 5.5. Plainly, the population density of Singapore is WAY higher than US (Sing=6050/sq.mile, US=2404/sq.mile(urban density)).
Now, if we expected increased connectivity with increased density, Singapore should be way more connected than the US. Instead, Singapore lags.
Netherlands and US are dead even at 6.5 connectivity wise. However, Netherlands has 387/sq.km (2.6 sq/km=1 sq/mi, so about 1006/sq mile.
Being less dense than the US, we would expect Netherlands to also be less connected. It isn't.
Could it be that population density is just a lame excuse to explain why broadband sucks in the US?? Could it be that the lack of Broadband, or if it does exist, the lack of choice and competition, has to do with the way the Telecos and the Government are practically conspiring to ensure a broadband monopoly. Believe me, If I had a chance to ditch Cumcrust.net, I would.
Actually, IAAL, and in civil cases too, once you rest, you're done. Let me tell you, there is no joy greater then hearing "I rest", when you know the other side has missed a "magic word" or two (failed to present sufficient evidence to meet the legal standards of their case). It's just a pure "gimme". Of course, I don't practice patent law, but I would be shocked to learn that in patent cases, you can add evidence after your chance to present evidence is over.
Now, if this evidence could not have been found before trial, and it sure sounds like it could have been since this is all about puting old programs together, it could be sent back for further procedings. This rarely happens. Another possibility, If MS had tried to present this evidence, and the trial court refused to let it in, and the appeals courts decide it would have been relevant, and its admission could have affected the outcome, it could also be referred back for further proceedings. But that is a hell of a lot of "ifs" and "ands". Again - not likely.
You can't present new evidence on appeal. Appeals are for examining the evidence that exists in the trial court record and analyzing it under competing legal principles. You get one chance to present evidence - that's the trial. After that, the record is closed, except in very very rare circumstances.
WOW! Check out Eric Flint's visionary statements re posting string free digital books. Someone should print that out and send it the RIAA.
Excerpt: There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!... I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
I've always loved Sci-Fi and I just can't imagine it completely dying out. And I think there are some good modern authors too. Here's a short list of authors I've enjoyed who published works in the last decade:
Ian M. Banks (the Culture stuff - not the fantasy stuff)
Only in a limited number of circumstances would a case be re-opened to present newly discovered evidence. The fact finding stage of this case is over. I doubt this information will be of any use now.
The second question is fairly easy for us regular citizens - even if you can't call it "tresspass", it sure would count as "car prowling". Lot's of kids get a few months in juvie for that!;-)
Someday, that first question will come up. Rest assured, it will be in a case where the facts are horrid like they are here. The whole case will hinge on whether using that information was OK, and as a result, we'll get a bad decision which says that if you voluntarily purchase one these devices, you have put your GPS coordinates in the public sphere. At least that's where I'll wager my 2 cents.
Actually, I think the cops actedd appropriatly in this case because before they attached the devices, they went to a judge and got permission (a warrant) to do so. That is in fact the reason this evidence was not tossed out.
In this case, the police had impounded the cars and while impounded, obtained a warrant to place the devices. They had to do the same thing for the GPSs as they would to search his home. So this is a good decision.
Where a law enforcement officer is able to detect something at a
lawful vantage point through his or her senses, no search occurs under
article I section 7.... '{W}hat is voluntarily exposed to the
general public and observable without the use of enhancement devices from
an unprotected area is not considered part of a person's private affairs.'... The court has also affirmed as constitutional
searches involving sense-enhancing devices such as binoculars or a
flashlight, allowing police to see more easily what is open to public view.... 'However, a substantial and unreasonable
departure from a lawful vantage point, or a particularly intrusive method
of viewing, may constitute a search.'... Thus, where police used an infrared thermal device to detect heat
distribution patterns within a home that were not detectable by the naked
eye or other senses, the surveillance was a particularly intrusive means of
observation that exceeded allowable limits under article I, section 7.
It's more than an issue of cost savings. WA has previously ruled that cops can't go around checking houses for strange infrared patterns without a warrant (grow operations). As technology progresses, it will become easier and easier to peer through walls into your private affairs. This case is good because it says that even though we may be able to do those things, before the police are allowed to, they must show at least a little evidence that the search is reasonable. Note that getting a warrant does not require the same caliber of evidence needed to convict a person. In this case, it came down to an affidavit that the cops searched everywhere and found no child, that a red pubic hair was found in bed (Jackson = red head, girl too young to have them), and Jackson was the only person around. As you can see, getting a warrant was not an onerous task. From that point on, rake in the cost savings all you want. From the case:
If police are not required to obtain a warrant under article I,
section 7 before attaching a GPS device to a citizen's vehicle, then there
is no limitation on the State's use of these devices on any person's
vehicle, whether criminal activity is suspected or not. The resulting
trespass into private affairs of Washington citizens is precisely what
article I, section 7 was intended to prevent. It should be recalled that
one aspect of the infrared thermal imaging surveillance in Young that
troubled us was the fact that if its use did not require a warrant, there
would be no limitation on the government's ability to use it on any private
residence, at any time regardless of whether criminal activity is
suspected. Young, 123 Wn.2d at 186-87.
As with infrared thermal imaging surveillance, use of GPS tracking
devices is a particularly intrusive method of surveillance, making it
possible to acquire an enormous amount of personal information about the
citizen under circumstances where the individual is unaware that every
single vehicle trip taken and the duration of every single stop may be
recorded by the government.
We conclude that citizens of this State have a right to be free from
the type of governmental intrusion that occurs when a GPS device is
attached to a citizen's vehicle, regardless of reduced privacy expectations
due to advances in technology. We hold that under article I, section 7 a
warrant is required for installation of these devices.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: -1, Troll
"I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first..."
The Beatles are the most overplayed band in the history of the universe.
May I suggest following the link? The "Fishman Affidavit" is a court record - a public document. Here, I'll help you out a little:
When Fishman was then brought to court, he used parts of Scientology-documents to prove he had been brainwashed by the Church. These Scientology documents thereby became public material: anybody could go to the court library and read them. The Church, fearing that its sacred secrets would be revealed, had some of their people going to the library every day to borrow these documents, thereby preventing other people (read: non-Scientologists) from reading them. Nevertheless, the Fishman Affidavit got copied (it was also available through the clerk of the court, for a mere $36.50). Somebody retrieved the affidavit via the clerk, scanned it, and posted it to the net. The Fishman Affidavit has been travelling on the Internet ever since.
I think you are confusing some features useful for DVD playback, with the ability to run linux. RH9 installed on my new nehemiah without a hitch just two weeks ago and it works great for net and email. One thing I noticed after I finished assembling it - I used the dining room table - my fridge is louder than that computer. And if I get a brick PS, it will be heavenly.
As for speed, I think it is slightly faster than my Duron 700... but the duron is easily 3x as loud.
No worries about unsettling this athiest. When I wrote what I did, I had in the back of my mind the lower labor cost of pure subsistence, but I didn't want to throw in too many caveats. Suppose I ought to now. While I acknowledge that studies have shown that less labor goes into pure subsistence, I would also wager that groups who live this way have shorter lifespans, more disease, and most importantly to the/. crowd, a severe shortage of broadband.
Although farming is more labor intensive for the individual, is it more labor intesive for the society? For example, assuming sufficient carrying capacity, if 280m people in the US all lived by subsistence, we would spend 306,600,000,000 hours per year meeting our food needs (280m x 3 x 365). And although it might feel like a billion hours is passing when you're 5 deep in the checkout line, I doubt that adds up to 1095 hours per year (3 x 365).
If anyone is up to this task, it's this guy:
Sean Gorman. Already discussed here.
Truth is, if information exists it will be discovered eventually. As others have pointed out, it is better to make a strong system than a secret one. And let's face it, it's pretty darn hard to hide power lines. As for the underground ones, they are marked so people who dig don't die.
I have no factual data to back me up, but just guessing, it seems that a more distributed power generation system would be much cheaper (and more reliable). One problem appears to be that all the NIMBYs work to prevent power interconnection. For example, CT has blocked NY's use of an underwater cable for the last 1.5 yrs. Plainly, with a bit more local generation, everyone would have been better off.
Good points. I'm surprised at all the critics out there - science is a long term investment. For example, if people focused solely on subsistence needs in the past, we'd still be farming with bone or wooden hoes and the world would be a hungrier place (actually, we probably wouldn't be farming). In the long run, more Indians will likely benefit from the advances in technology and skills this will bring them.
I wish people would see the "feed the world first" arguments as just another form of luditeism (if that's a word).
The first scientists to recognize that rapidly pulsed detonations might be used to create thrust were probably the Germans, who developed the V-1 "buzz bomb" in the 1930s. "The Germans attempted a detonation with the V-1 but never got it," says Chris Brophy, a propulsion research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "The V-1 was a pulse-jet, more of a high-speed deflagration."
So what you are saying is that if X will eventually become Y, then X == Y even if presently, it is not identical to Y.
The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.
OK, my bad. Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit. Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.
Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.
The comparison of abortion to "the final solution" makes a huge assumption. It assumes that fertilized egg is the equal of a fully formed sentient being. That is a big assumption - take it away and your analogy is useless.
For example, on Thanksgiving day, how many people will see no difference between a fried turkey egg and a roast turkey? Plainly they are not the same.
Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat? Although perhaps not sentient, they clearly are able to intake information, process it, and react to situations. You certainly can't say that about an embryo.
You say an embryo has the potential to become a fully sentient human? Well, I have the potential to become a fully convicted bank robber. Should I be locked up for the next 20 years? "Unborn babies"? I'm an undead corpse. Puting "un" in front of certain phrases like this just makes them meaningless.
The day you prove that a tomato seedis the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.
Granparent: "..Christians (and other people with imaginary friends who apparently tell them what to think)..." Emphasis added.
Parent: "Out of curiosity, who tells you what to think? Surely you've had influences, right? Parents, friends, government, history."
I think the key word was "imaginary". Most parents friends etc. actually exist. Only history, which could reference "made up" history, is a potentially valied point. But not that much. I've been influenced in my thinking by works of fiction. I don't however, believe that R. Daneel actually exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Might I suggest a solution to this broadband problem.
I don't know how valid this is. Rather than focusing on the top rated, how about looking at those close to US figures. If the above poster's figures are correct, US = 6.5, Singapore = 5.5. Plainly, the population density of Singapore is WAY higher than US (Sing=6050/sq.mile, US=2404/sq.mile(urban density)).
Now, if we expected increased connectivity with increased density, Singapore should be way more connected than the US. Instead, Singapore lags.
Netherlands and US are dead even at 6.5 connectivity wise. However, Netherlands has 387/sq.km (2.6 sq/km=1 sq/mi, so about 1006/sq mile.
Being less dense than the US, we would expect Netherlands to also be less connected. It isn't.
Could it be that population density is just a lame excuse to explain why broadband sucks in the US?? Could it be that the lack of Broadband, or if it does exist, the lack of choice and competition, has to do with the way the Telecos and the Government are practically conspiring to ensure a broadband monopoly. Believe me, If I had a chance to ditch Cumcrust.net, I would.
Valid point ... and it would be deliciously ironic! ;-)
Actually, IAAL, and in civil cases too, once you rest, you're done. Let me tell you, there is no joy greater then hearing "I rest", when you know the other side has missed a "magic word" or two (failed to present sufficient evidence to meet the legal standards of their case). It's just a pure "gimme". Of course, I don't practice patent law, but I would be shocked to learn that in patent cases, you can add evidence after your chance to present evidence is over.
Now, if this evidence could not have been found before trial, and it sure sounds like it could have been since this is all about puting old programs together, it could be sent back for further procedings. This rarely happens. Another possibility, If MS had tried to present this evidence, and the trial court refused to let it in, and the appeals courts decide it would have been relevant, and its admission could have affected the outcome, it could also be referred back for further proceedings. But that is a hell of a lot of "ifs" and "ands". Again - not likely.
You can't present new evidence on appeal. Appeals are for examining the evidence that exists in the trial court record and analyzing it under competing legal principles. You get one chance to present evidence - that's the trial. After that, the record is closed, except in very very rare circumstances.
WOW! Check out Eric Flint's visionary statements re posting string free digital books. Someone should print that out and send it the RIAA.
... I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:
Excerpt: There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!
Who else should be here?
Only in a limited number of circumstances would a case be re-opened to present newly discovered evidence. The fact finding stage of this case is over. I doubt this information will be of any use now.
The second question is fairly easy for us regular citizens - even if you can't call it "tresspass", it sure would count as "car prowling". Lot's of kids get a few months in juvie for that! ;-)
Someday, that first question will come up. Rest assured, it will be in a case where the facts are horrid like they are here. The whole case will hinge on whether using that information was OK, and as a result, we'll get a bad decision which says that if you voluntarily purchase one these devices, you have put your GPS coordinates in the public sphere. At least that's where I'll wager my 2 cents.
Actually, I think the cops actedd appropriatly in this case because before they attached the devices, they went to a judge and got permission (a warrant) to do so. That is in fact the reason this evidence was not tossed out.
In this case, the police had impounded the cars and while impounded, obtained a warrant to place the devices. They had to do the same thing for the GPSs as they would to search his home. So this is a good decision.
Bzzzt. Read the case.
... '{W}hat is voluntarily exposed to the
general public and observable without the use of enhancement devices from
an unprotected area is not considered part of a person's private affairs.' ... The court has also affirmed as constitutional
searches involving sense-enhancing devices such as binoculars or a
flashlight, allowing police to see more easily what is open to public view. ... 'However, a substantial and unreasonable
departure from a lawful vantage point, or a particularly intrusive method
of viewing, may constitute a search.' ... Thus, where police used an infrared thermal device to detect heat
distribution patterns within a home that were not detectable by the naked
eye or other senses, the surveillance was a particularly intrusive means of
observation that exceeded allowable limits under article I, section 7.
Where a law enforcement officer is able to detect something at a lawful vantage point through his or her senses, no search occurs under article I section 7.
citations omitted for readability purposes
It's more than an issue of cost savings. WA has previously ruled that cops can't go around checking houses for strange infrared patterns without a warrant (grow operations). As technology progresses, it will become easier and easier to peer through walls into your private affairs. This case is good because it says that even though we may be able to do those things, before the police are allowed to, they must show at least a little evidence that the search is reasonable. Note that getting a warrant does not require the same caliber of evidence needed to convict a person. In this case, it came down to an affidavit that the cops searched everywhere and found no child, that a red pubic hair was found in bed (Jackson = red head, girl too young to have them), and Jackson was the only person around. As you can see, getting a warrant was not an onerous task. From that point on, rake in the cost savings all you want. From the case:
If police are not required to obtain a warrant under article I, section 7 before attaching a GPS device to a citizen's vehicle, then there is no limitation on the State's use of these devices on any person's vehicle, whether criminal activity is suspected or not. The resulting trespass into private affairs of Washington citizens is precisely what article I, section 7 was intended to prevent. It should be recalled that one aspect of the infrared thermal imaging surveillance in Young that troubled us was the fact that if its use did not require a warrant, there would be no limitation on the government's ability to use it on any private residence, at any time regardless of whether criminal activity is suspected. Young, 123 Wn.2d at 186-87.
As with infrared thermal imaging surveillance, use of GPS tracking devices is a particularly intrusive method of surveillance, making it possible to acquire an enormous amount of personal information about the citizen under circumstances where the individual is unaware that every single vehicle trip taken and the duration of every single stop may be recorded by the government.
We conclude that citizens of this State have a right to be free from the type of governmental intrusion that occurs when a GPS device is attached to a citizen's vehicle, regardless of reduced privacy expectations due to advances in technology. We hold that under article I, section 7 a warrant is required for installation of these devices.
"I could be wrong...but I'm a Beatle fan first ..."
The Beatles are the most overplayed band in the history of the universe.
Not the same at all.
May I suggest following the link? The "Fishman Affidavit" is a court record - a public document. Here, I'll help you out a little:
When Fishman was then brought to court, he used parts of Scientology-documents to prove he had been brainwashed by the Church. These Scientology documents thereby became public material: anybody could go to the court library and read them. The Church, fearing that its sacred secrets would be revealed, had some of their people going to the library every day to borrow these documents, thereby preventing other people (read: non-Scientologists) from reading them. Nevertheless, the Fishman Affidavit got copied (it was also available through the clerk of the court, for a mere $36.50). Somebody retrieved the affidavit via the clerk, scanned it, and posted it to the net. The Fishman Affidavit has been travelling on the Internet ever since.
I think you are confusing some features useful for DVD playback, with the ability to run linux. RH9 installed on my new nehemiah without a hitch just two weeks ago and it works great for net and email. One thing I noticed after I finished assembling it - I used the dining room table - my fridge is louder than that computer. And if I get a brick PS, it will be heavenly.
... but the duron is easily 3x as loud.
As for speed, I think it is slightly faster than my Duron 700
It sounds more like "easy women" to me. If buying a drink and dinner is the definition of "prostitute" ... I've been ripped off by a lot.
No worries about unsettling this athiest. When I wrote what I did, I had in the back of my mind the lower labor cost of pure subsistence, but I didn't want to throw in too many caveats. Suppose I ought to now. While I acknowledge that studies have shown that less labor goes into pure subsistence, I would also wager that groups who live this way have shorter lifespans, more disease, and most importantly to the
Although farming is more labor intensive for the individual, is it more labor intesive for the society? For example, assuming sufficient carrying capacity, if 280m people in the US all lived by subsistence, we would spend 306,600,000,000 hours per year meeting our food needs (280m x 3 x 365). And although it might feel like a billion hours is passing when you're 5 deep in the checkout line, I doubt that adds up to 1095 hours per year (3 x 365).
If anyone is up to this task, it's this guy: Sean Gorman. Already discussed here.
Truth is, if information exists it will be discovered eventually. As others have pointed out, it is better to make a strong system than a secret one. And let's face it, it's pretty darn hard to hide power lines. As for the underground ones, they are marked so people who dig don't die.
I have no factual data to back me up, but just guessing, it seems that a more distributed power generation system would be much cheaper (and more reliable). One problem appears to be that all the NIMBYs work to prevent power interconnection. For example, CT has blocked NY's use of an underwater cable for the last 1.5 yrs. Plainly, with a bit more local generation, everyone would have been better off.
Good points. I'm surprised at all the critics out there - science is a long term investment. For example, if people focused solely on subsistence needs in the past, we'd still be farming with bone or wooden hoes and the world would be a hungrier place (actually, we probably wouldn't be farming). In the long run, more Indians will likely benefit from the advances in technology and skills this will bring them.
I wish people would see the "feed the world first" arguments as just another form of luditeism (if that's a word).
The first scientists to recognize that rapidly pulsed detonations might be used to create thrust were probably the Germans, who developed the V-1 "buzz bomb" in the 1930s. "The Germans attempted a detonation with the V-1 but never got it," says Chris Brophy, a propulsion research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "The V-1 was a pulse-jet, more of a high-speed deflagration."
From page 2
So what you are saying is that if X will eventually become Y, then X == Y even if presently, it is not identical to Y.
The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.
OK, my bad. Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit. Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.
Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.
The comparison of abortion to "the final solution" makes a huge assumption. It assumes that fertilized egg is the equal of a fully formed sentient being. That is a big assumption - take it away and your analogy is useless.
For example, on Thanksgiving day, how many people will see no difference between a fried turkey egg and a roast turkey? Plainly they are not the same.
Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat? Although perhaps not sentient, they clearly are able to intake information, process it, and react to situations. You certainly can't say that about an embryo.
You say an embryo has the potential to become a fully sentient human? Well, I have the potential to become a fully convicted bank robber. Should I be locked up for the next 20 years? "Unborn babies"? I'm an undead corpse. Puting "un" in front of certain phrases like this just makes them meaningless.
The day you prove that a tomato seed is the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.
Granparent: "..Christians (and other people with imaginary friends who apparently tell them what to think)..." Emphasis added.
Parent: "Out of curiosity, who tells you what to think? Surely you've had influences, right? Parents, friends, government, history."
I think the key word was "imaginary". Most parents friends etc. actually exist. Only history, which could reference "made up" history, is a potentially valied point. But not that much. I've been influenced in my thinking by works of fiction. I don't however, believe that R. Daneel actually exists.