That was the first xkcd chart that I thought was totally dumb. High levels of radiation are bad for you, low levels are not, cool. But the danger in an accident like that isn't radiation, it is the radioactive isotopes that are released. The air might contain a low level of radiation, but if the iodine is absorbed in your body and sits for a long time in your thyroids, those will be exposed to very high levels of radiation. When you undergo a CT scan, you get radiation, and when you go home it is gone. It is not the same as drinking tap water that contains radioactive elements.
Yeah, but I have the Flipout. I like small phones, and I thought everybody would like the Flipout. I was wrong. And now Motorola announced Flipout will stay in 2.1. So, maybe people will port Milestone stuff to the Flipout, but the community is very small.
I totally agree! My motophone is stuck in 2.1 with all its bugs and the additional bugs Motorola has, and will not get an upgrade, unless a kind hacker does the job that Motorola should have done.
The problem is that the list of companies I won't buy a phone from is getting longer and longer. Sony, Motorola, and of course, apple.
Sad.
Wow! Good find! There goes my joke. I was so happy with it.
But there is a big difference - one is a demonstration, a protest, the other a threat.
"See this gun, change your vote, or else you'll be gunned down."
"See this cement truck? Change your vote or we'll ram the parliament gate!"
[The exact quote used at Gabrielle Giffords' rally was "I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights... That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."]
Hmmm? And were did you get the information from that no one was armed?
I think this is more of a perfect example against the idea that guns are good for self defense: even though the US allows people to have guns for self defense, it didn't help here.
I don't know what their release policy is. Maybe FIFO, maybe more complicated. I think they have been sitting on these cables for a long time. I heard they had them a long time ago, and I only heard that they have new bank corruption info (bank of america?) recently.
I think they are trying to do the leaks "justice", so that they don't just get swept under the rug. Each leak can cost the leaker freedom/life/job/future. It seems that is why they are releasing the current cables slowly, and why they are waiting with the next release.
And, I think that a WikiLeaks release: "breaking news: WikiLeaks says the whole world is corrupt", will have less of an effect in making the world a less corrupt place, than letting the world handle the cases one after the other.
With the effect that each accused will say "but everybody else is corrupt, too! Why not release their info?"
People keep saying this, and are totally wrong. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/information_published_by_WikiLeaks
Among the leaks: Barklays bank tax avoidance, Peru oil scandal, Kaupthing bank (causing huge uproar in iceland), Tibetan dissent in china, and many more.
Now you have to go and tell 5 other people that this rumor is false, so we can kill it.
What if they somehow managed to mix in wrong cables with the right ones. It would be another way to protect secrets. Except that now if people in the military will start reading them, the lies will be treated as truth by the military.
Except that that would be way too rational.
And, if you think about it, for most of the cables it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong, the damage they do it by the world thinking they are correct. So, puting in 70% wrong info and not telling anyone is like building a doomsday machine and not telling anyone. Hmmm.... now it sounds more like something an intelligence agency would do:)
Hmmmm.... first internet war that we can actually observe and follow as it happens is not news for nerds, stuff that matters? Then what is? Where would nerds get their first-hand account? Whose embeded journalists would sit with the hackers at the NSA as they destroy the fibers of the internet to strain the wikileaks out of them?
Actually, they should encrypt some with 64bit, some with 65 (is that possible?) some with 66, etc.
Crackable, but slowly. This way, even if the key never gets out, eventually we'll know....
And because of different encryption strength, it will still get released slowly.
Just to remind you - these latest cables are just the last and probably most significant of a huge list of things that wikileaks released. Look at the "all leaks archived" link on the wikileaks site for an incredible list of torrents of all the leaks that wikileaks already did, some of which already had great influence in some countries/companies (iceland, peru, australia...). It is not all about the US.
I think that they are releasing the data so slowly, because there are many parts in it that have to be digested slowly - see for example the media flare up going on in spain because of the released documents, the clusterbombs issues in the UK, the anger in germany over the 15% overhead taken by the US army, etc. If it was all released in a day, such issues would be buried among hundreds of others of similar importance.
The different rights in a democracy are there to protect individuals from the people. Because otherwise the majority can vote to do as it pleases.
So, you have the right to freedom of speech, even that speech is something that everybody else in the country hates. You can't rely on public backlash to protect the freedom of speech of an individual. What if everybody in the country really hates what I said?
Now of course, the problem is that even with these rights the majority can do as it pleases... you can always add amendments, or have the elected executive branch do things away from the eye of the law, or in special courts where these rights don't hold.... too bad.
I don't understand this thing about the children or heirs. The money that was earned from owning a copyright for a certain time does not disappear. If the author wants his family to have an income when she's dead, she should invest this money wisely, get life insurance, or whatever. Why is it that when I plan to feed my children by working for another 20 years, my children don't automatically get that money from society if I die, but when an author dies they do?
You should read the discover article on the thing. I was saying exactly the same as you before I did.
The gist of it is this: Imagine the car going exactly at the speed of the wind. In the car there is no wind, except that the ground is moving. The ground moving turns the wheels powers the propellor, which rotates and gives the car a force forward. Since wind speed is 0, there is no resistance, no force to counter the propellors force, the car will now accelerate, i.e. start going faster than the wind. Once you accept that it will then go faster than the wind, the only question is how much faster.
(The ground acting on the wheels will exert an very small force on the car, which can be made infinitesimal by reducing the friction)
I'm sure that developers are quite aware of supply and demand curves.
Yes, they probably are. But they don't behave as if they are. We keep hearing how they could make so much more money if all the people how pirated music or software would buy it instead. I was pretending they aren't lying to the press/court, but instead just ignorant. You are right - they are probably lying through their teeth.
You think that if developers stopped giving away apps for free I'd have 53 paid apps on my phone? No way! I'd probably have even less.
Yeah... more than 2 or 3.
Sorry, that was badly worded. I'd have less than 2 or 3. I bought only software I could test. If I couldn't test it, I wouldn't get it. And 24 hour testing isn't really enough for me. I need to really see that all the bugs/missing features that the software has aren't affecting how I will use it. Though 24 hour testing is a good start. And in my case, I can verify my claims by looking over past devices I had. On the my previous devices (palm/win mobile/symbian) there were hardly any testing versions of software, and my rate of software purchase was way low. It took me a year or two till I found 2-3 pieces of software I was willing to buy. On the android it took a month or two.
If I could have cars for $0, I'd have 50 cars in my driveway, one for every occasion. But that says nothing about how many cars I'd be willing to buy for $10000.
I would have at most 2 cars if I could have any car for $0. I don't like cars. I would get rid of one car if I got a 3rd car for some reason. I don't like having cars around.
OK, I lied. I don't even have a driveway. But I'd have more than 2. Maybe I'd buy a new one every time I needed it, and then give it away right after. I'd probably have a ferrari for fun, (I'm not sure how they handle as I've never tried one... probably ok) and a Landrover for hiking trips and a truck for buying furniture, and a van for when I have visitors, and a caravan for road trips, and a smart for driving around in town, and, well, maybe you got the picture.
I guess it would be kinda like http://teilauto.net/ which I do have;) Except that they don't have ferarris. They did have smart roadsters for some time. But I guess it isn't quite the same.
When will developers/artists/journalists/courts learn about supply and demand curves?
Number of pirated copies tells you about how many copies of your art/software you would sell (to people who pirate) if the price was $0 per copy. Number of sold items tells you how many you would sell at $x, the price that you actually sell your art/program for (to people who don't pirate).
At a price of $0 per copy, indeed thousands or millions of copies of software would be downloaded. But that says nothing about how many would be sold without piracy, when the price is greater than 0.
If I could have cars for $0, I'd have 50 cars in my driveway, one for every occasion. But that says nothing about how many cars I'd be willing to buy for $10000. Even without piracy you can see the same phenomenon: I have probably around 50 free apps installed on my android, but only 2 or 3 paid apps. You think that if developers stopped giving away apps for free I'd have 53 paid apps on my phone? No way! I'd probably have even less. All my paid apps are ones that I could testdrive and really liked. There are many paid apps that have no free version, and I never touched them.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is dumb enough to build a power plant near the sea shore in such a tsunami prone zone?
That was the first xkcd chart that I thought was totally dumb. High levels of radiation are bad for you, low levels are not, cool. But the danger in an accident like that isn't radiation, it is the radioactive isotopes that are released. The air might contain a low level of radiation, but if the iodine is absorbed in your body and sits for a long time in your thyroids, those will be exposed to very high levels of radiation. When you undergo a CT scan, you get radiation, and when you go home it is gone. It is not the same as drinking tap water that contains radioactive elements.
Yeah, but I have the Flipout. I like small phones, and I thought everybody would like the Flipout. I was wrong. And now Motorola announced Flipout will stay in 2.1. So, maybe people will port Milestone stuff to the Flipout, but the community is very small.
I totally agree! My motophone is stuck in 2.1 with all its bugs and the additional bugs Motorola has, and will not get an upgrade, unless a kind hacker does the job that Motorola should have done. The problem is that the list of companies I won't buy a phone from is getting longer and longer. Sony, Motorola, and of course, apple. Sad.
Which is then a christian democratic state?
4
quick! Spread the word, so they can't take it down. I'll set up a torrent. Here are some more encodings:
0x4
100
004
four bottles of beer on the wall
Now you can go get an Android and suffer like the rest of us.
But there is a big difference - one is a demonstration, a protest, the other a threat.
"See this gun, change your vote, or else you'll be gunned down."
"See this cement truck? Change your vote or we'll ram the parliament gate!"
[The exact quote used at Gabrielle Giffords' rally was "I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights... That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."]
I think this is more of a perfect example against the idea that guns are good for self defense: even though the US allows people to have guns for self defense, it didn't help here.
I've yet to see someone drop a cement mixer truck at a political rally. Guns are used in the US a political scare tactic.
I think they are trying to do the leaks "justice", so that they don't just get swept under the rug. Each leak can cost the leaker freedom/life/job/future. It seems that is why they are releasing the current cables slowly, and why they are waiting with the next release.
And, I think that a WikiLeaks release: "breaking news: WikiLeaks says the whole world is corrupt", will have less of an effect in making the world a less corrupt place, than letting the world handle the cases one after the other. With the effect that each accused will say "but everybody else is corrupt, too! Why not release their info?"
Now you have to go and tell 5 other people that this rumor is false, so we can kill it.
Except that that would be way too rational.
And, if you think about it, for most of the cables it doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong, the damage they do it by the world thinking they are correct. So, puting in 70% wrong info and not telling anyone is like building a doomsday machine and not telling anyone. Hmmm.... now it sounds more like something an intelligence agency would do :)
Hmmmm.... first internet war that we can actually observe and follow as it happens is not news for nerds, stuff that matters? Then what is? Where would nerds get their first-hand account? Whose embeded journalists would sit with the hackers at the NSA as they destroy the fibers of the internet to strain the wikileaks out of them?
And because of different encryption strength, it will still get released slowly.
I think that they are releasing the data so slowly, because there are many parts in it that have to be digested slowly - see for example the media flare up going on in spain because of the released documents, the clusterbombs issues in the UK, the anger in germany over the 15% overhead taken by the US army, etc. If it was all released in a day, such issues would be buried among hundreds of others of similar importance.
So, you have the right to freedom of speech, even that speech is something that everybody else in the country hates. You can't rely on public backlash to protect the freedom of speech of an individual. What if everybody in the country really hates what I said?
Now of course, the problem is that even with these rights the majority can do as it pleases... you can always add amendments, or have the elected executive branch do things away from the eye of the law, or in special courts where these rights don't hold.... too bad.
And what if the government pressures a corporation to not allow you to speak?
And to be honest, why does it have to be curved at all? It could just be two projected displays at right angles and nobody would care.
According to TFA, or TFV, it seems easier to drag documents across when it is curved. Your finger doesn't get stuck in the corner.
I don't understand this thing about the children or heirs. The money that was earned from owning a copyright for a certain time does not disappear. If the author wants his family to have an income when she's dead, she should invest this money wisely, get life insurance, or whatever. Why is it that when I plan to feed my children by working for another 20 years, my children don't automatically get that money from society if I die, but when an author dies they do?
Iran isn't an arab country.
You should read the discover article on the thing. I was saying exactly the same as you before I did. The gist of it is this: Imagine the car going exactly at the speed of the wind. In the car there is no wind, except that the ground is moving. The ground moving turns the wheels powers the propellor, which rotates and gives the car a force forward. Since wind speed is 0, there is no resistance, no force to counter the propellors force, the car will now accelerate, i.e. start going faster than the wind. Once you accept that it will then go faster than the wind, the only question is how much faster. (The ground acting on the wheels will exert an very small force on the car, which can be made infinitesimal by reducing the friction)
I'm sure that developers are quite aware of supply and demand curves.
Yes, they probably are. But they don't behave as if they are. We keep hearing how they could make so much more money if all the people how pirated music or software would buy it instead. I was pretending they aren't lying to the press/court, but instead just ignorant. You are right - they are probably lying through their teeth.
You think that if developers stopped giving away apps for free I'd have 53 paid apps on my phone? No way! I'd probably have even less.
Yeah... more than 2 or 3.
Sorry, that was badly worded. I'd have less than 2 or 3. I bought only software I could test. If I couldn't test it, I wouldn't get it.
And 24 hour testing isn't really enough for me. I need to really see that all the bugs/missing features that the software has aren't affecting how I will use it.
Though 24 hour testing is a good start.
And in my case, I can verify my claims by looking over past devices I had. On the my previous devices (palm/win mobile/symbian) there were hardly any testing versions of software, and my rate of software purchase was way low. It took me a year or two till I found 2-3 pieces of software I was willing to buy. On the android it took a month or two.
If I could have cars for $0, I'd have 50 cars in my driveway, one for every occasion. But that says nothing about how many cars I'd be willing to buy for $10000.
I would have at most 2 cars if I could have any car for $0. I don't like cars. I would get rid of one car if I got a 3rd car for some reason. I don't like having cars around.
OK, I lied. I don't even have a driveway. But I'd have more than 2. Maybe I'd buy a new one every time I needed it, and then give it away right after.
I'd probably have a ferrari for fun, (I'm not sure how they handle as I've never tried one... probably ok) and a Landrover for hiking trips and a truck for buying furniture, and a van for when I have visitors, and a caravan for road trips, and a smart for driving around in town, and, well, maybe you got the picture.
I guess it would be kinda like http://teilauto.net/ which I do have ;)
Except that they don't have ferarris. They did have smart roadsters for some time. But I guess it isn't quite the same.
I think this is of-topic.
When will developers/artists/journalists/courts learn about supply and demand curves?
Number of pirated copies tells you about how many copies of your art/software you would sell (to people who pirate) if the price was $0 per copy.
Number of sold items tells you how many you would sell at $x, the price that you actually sell your art/program for (to people who don't pirate).
At a price of $0 per copy, indeed thousands or millions of copies of software would be downloaded. But that says nothing about how many would be sold without piracy, when the price is greater than 0.
If I could have cars for $0, I'd have 50 cars in my driveway, one for every occasion. But that says nothing about how many cars I'd be willing to buy for $10000.
Even without piracy you can see the same phenomenon:
I have probably around 50 free apps installed on my android, but only 2 or 3 paid apps. You think that if developers stopped giving away apps for free I'd have 53 paid apps on my phone? No way! I'd probably have even less. All my paid apps are ones that I could testdrive and really liked. There are many paid apps that have no free version, and I never touched them.