ANot surprising: higher temperature -> oceans heat up -> less dissolved CO2.
Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water?
I think you'll find it's the same with CO2.
Better find another explanation.
>>This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it.
Actually the large majority of Christians (aka Roman Catholics) have no problem with macro evolution. It's official doctrine. It's based in the ancient Christian belief that the understanding the Universe is one of the best ways of understanding the God who created it. The idea that the workings of the world itself is as much a testament to God's will as the Bible. It's the minority of hardcore evangelicals (who somehow seem to have a strangehold on middle America) who prefer to believe that hard evidence must always give way to their fixed, particular interpretation of scripture.
Actually the appropriate analogy is not with a public library. It's with a regular web search engine.
If it's a breach of copyright to index books without permission and allow people to search them (even though you only show users a snippet at a time), then it's equally a breach to index web pages. Websites are just as worthy of copyright protection as books.
Can you imagine a judge ruling that web search is illegal? Even if there was a prima facie breach of copyright in indexing the content for commercial gain, my guess is the courts will find a way out, either by extending fair use or (more likely) pointing out that there's no way publishers (web or online) can prove a loss from such activities, indeed it's almost inevitable that they gain, if only they weren't so block headed not to notice.
(You know, judges aren't as crazy or out of touch as you might think. Supreme court excepted, of course.)
Probably. It have must been pretty smart to always win at a game where it's mathematically proven that it's always possible to force a draw. Either that or MIT students are better at building computers than playing tic-tac-toe.
The genius move with the video iPod is that it's not a separate range. From now on, the regular iPod plays video too. That means that millions of people who would have just bought an iPod are now getting a video iPod. Millions will by a video player almost by default.
Up until now, no-one has managed to shift portable video players because the customer doesn't see a need for them. But some time someone will work out how to make video on the move work, whether it's as a mobile movie library or some watch-on-the-move content. When that time comes, Apple will be in an unassailable position because they will have a virtual stranglehold on the videoplayer market already.
the post said invented, not implemented. Read Montesquieu , Voltaire, Locke et al. if you want to see where the idea came from.
The US constitution may be a marvellous document, but it was not dreamed up from scratch by a bunch of hick plantation owners and yankee merchants (aka founding fathers). It's more of a greatest hits compilation of 18th century European social philosophy.
>>I've been to Europe enough to see that the attitudes of the citizens about driving is pretty abysmal.
Sure, because Europe is this homogenous country with one continent-wide attitude. (hint: sarcasm).
Just because you've seen Italians or Frenchmen careering around like homicidal maniacs it doesn't mean that the Finnish are the same. (FWIW, in Italy you can get on a motor scooter at 14 without any licence.)
And if you really want a like-for-like comparison between Finland and the US, note that much of Finland is above the arctic circle and the rest is pretty close. So for half the year Fins drive in near darkness on icy roads. Might be a bit tricky than coasting down the freeway in LA. How does Finland's road safety record compare with Alaska?
They still build some things well. I'm writing this on an iBook G4 which 2 days ago was accidentally catapulted some 4 ft in the air (note to self: do not leave computer on bean bag), landing on its side. About a year ago it was yanked off my desk (screen open) when I tripped on the power cord. Power adapter didn't survive that one but as for the machine itself... not a scratch, not a malfunction. Still, glad I've got carpet.
Re:Better than post-it notes
on
Too Many Passwords
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your method would be great except that it relies on you carrying around and frequently consulting a piece of paper in your wallet. As such it's only marginally less secure than just carrying around a note of your passwords in the first place.
How long would it take someone observing you to figure out what you were doing and swipe your wallet? (In an office it would probably be easy for a thief to xerox your codesheet). Then they just need a few guesses for your trivial "unencrypted" password and they're in.
Maybe that's the position in the US, but in the UK you have to be sure the item was stolen to be convicted for handling. Reasonable suspicion isn't enough.
>>You see, that's the difference between science and superstition. Science makes predictions which can be tested. That's why it sometimes changes. Superstition is not testable. That's why it stays the same.
I dunno about superstition being untestable. I have this superstition about a particularly lucky set of underwear. And when I wear it things go pretty well. But sometimes I think I shouldn't be so superstitious, so I take them off. And that's when it all goes wrong.
>> It would have been much easier to fix the problems then, than after 9/11 and several years of recession.
Exactly. After all, it's not like back in the 90s people didn't see 9/11 or the recession coming. That's why we all moved out of tech stocks before the crash and put those anti-hijack measures into place, right?
From what I've seen in the news, it was Bush who cut funding to the levees and ignored pleas that more money was needed, it was Bush who sent half the National Guard abroad, and it was Bush who reoriented FEMA's priorities away from natural disasters.
BTW, do you have concrete information that the levees were in bad shape under Clinton or do you just assume that if they were neglected now they must have also been neglected then?
Not the whole story. Unlike the US Constitution, the European Constitution also has consumer protection (II 98) and anti-trust clauses (III-161 to III-169) and the whole needs to be read together.
So if the EU constitution was passed it would be _unconstitutional_ for companies to engage in competition-distorting practices.
Remember that there's very little new in the Euro Constitution. Almost all of it - including IP protection and antitrust measures (see e.g. articles 81-86 of the EC treaty) - is lifted from earlier treaties. And there's plenty of caselaw to show that in most cases, the antitrust provisions win out over IP rights.
And yes, I am a lawyer currently working on European antitrust cases, so I know what I'm talking about.
Too right. There's millions of us pervs after mature women. I, for instance, have quite a thing for Angelina Jolie (30), J-Lo (35), and even Sharon Stone (47). Bring on the old women.
Maybe I'm evil, but I actually find it easier to empathise with Emperor and Vader than the Jedi. I mean, basically the jedi are a bunch of joyless, characterless goody-two-shoes. The only likeable jedi in episodes 1-3 is Yoda, and that's because he's green and talks funny, not because he's sympathetic. Obiwan's only human moments are when he actually shows he cares about Anakin (a most un-Jedi thing to do).
Look at the end of Ep III. Yoda sends Obiwan off to kill his best friend without a smidgeon of sympathy. And yet the Emperor seems genuinely concerned about Vader, going off in person to save him when he should be tracking down Yoda and Obiwan and at a point when he basically has no need of Vader any more anyway. Seems the old man has a soft spot for Vader. He may be an evil megalomaniac, but at least he has emotions.
I've decided there is only one explanation for the undescribable awfulness of Ep III's (and II's) "romantic" scenes.
George Lucas is a true geek and has never had a girlfriend in his life. It is possible he has never spoken to a woman he wasn't related to in a social context.
Seriously. To make Natalie Portman into an unconvincing lover takes some special skill.
(What confuses me is that by contrast the best written scenes in Ep IV-VI are Han and Leia's combative flirting. But I think Harrison Ford made most of that up himself.)
Please please please will people stop this ill-informed lawyer dissing. Yes I know it's the public stereotype but please hear a lawyer's perspective on this:
Lawyers do not act for themselves. Lawyers act for clients. IP lawyers do not want to extend software patents. Companies that employ IP lawyers do, and as long as the lawyer works on that job he will try and extend software patents. If the next week the law firm is hired by the Free Software Foundation- or the European Parliament - those same lawyers will work just as hard to restrict software patents.
Every time you hear about a stupid lawsuit, remember - there are lawyers working for both sides. Every time IBM chalks up a victory over SCO, it's still lawyers doing the work.
If you're going to draft a law to restrict software patents, who are you going to ask to do it? A geek whose words will be putty in the hand of the next decent lawyer hired by Microsoft, or the best IP lawyer you can find who will know how to make it watertight (until someone finds a better laywer).
Sure, it would be nice if we could all get along without lawyers, but we can't. Sure, there are a lot of dumb lawyers, a lot of unpleasant lawyers. But even so they're just doing their masters; bidding.
So call us intellectual whores, because we sell our arguments to the highest bidder. Call us dogs, because we're loyal to whoever throws us the next bone. Call us amoral, to the extent that we'll work for anyone. But don't call us evil, in the sense that we want any particular dastardly outcome for ourselves. To misuse the cry of the NRA, lawyers don't kill people, people do.
In a way it's unfortunate this had to come out of the mouth of the RIAA, because she does have a pretty good point. IMHO (and yes, IAAL and know a fair bit of competition law), Apple is behaving anticompetitively. There's no objective reason - either technological or beneficial to the consumer - why the iPod should not work with any music store, or iTMS with any other player.
The only reason for a lock-in is to protect Apple's bottom line and stifle competitors.
Think about it. If the iTMS/iPod combination is superior to the competition, then that's what consumers will choose anyway. So no need to lock in as long as your product is the best.
But what if someone releases a superior music player. Clearly iPod owners with significant iTMS collections are unlikely to switch. With the iPod by far and away the dominant player, that creates a big barrier for others to enter the market.
Or what about when your iPod breaks, or simply becomes obsolete. Again, if you've dropped $1000s on iTMS tracks, are you even going to consider another player, even if it's half the price?
Or what about when someone else comes up with a superior, or simply much cheaper, music store. If the dominant music player can't use it, it's going to have a hard time competing.
Result? Locking iPod and iTMS together results in higher iPod and iTMS prices and less incentive to innovate from competitors. Sounds pretty anticompetitive to me.
Sheesh. One guy has a bad install (mostly caused by his landlord, it seems), and it's generalised into a country-wide experience.
First, factual errors galore.:
"As I understand it, there are a certain number of fixed telephone lines in Britain. These lines are highly prized, as each homeowner leases the line from British Telecom"
Clearly, he doesn't understand it. He makes it sound like people have to fight with their neighbours to get a line! I think his information was last updated circa 1980, when it was true everywhere in the world. If you want a new line, all you do is phone up BT (or another operator in your area - yes, they do exist to correct another error) and they will add one. Ah, the magic of digital exchanges.
"Each homeowner must politely ask British Telecom for a number, and only one number may be given out per line."
As explained, BT is no longer a monopoly (it has a local monopolyin some areas, but I recall that Bell Atlantic had a monopoly when I lived in Boston so that's hardly UK-specific). And to say "only one number can be given out per line" - duh, that's how a line is defined. It does NOT mean that only one number is available per address. All you do is call BT or whoever and explain you want more "lines".
"For reference, let's review the procedure for obtaining broadband in the U.S. Step #1: Call up your cable or DSL provider, walk through the options, and decide what you want. Step #2: Receive and install the modem, or have an installer do it for you."
So he's not comparing like-with-like. First he spends a page whinging about how long it took him to get a phone line. Then he compares it to the US situation _starting from the point where he already has a phone line_.
Let's have a like-for-like comparison, please. What is the process for getting broadband in California when you just moved into an apartment, the landlord previously had broadband and only asked his provider to switch the day he moved out, and you didn't do anything about it until the day you moved in?
For the record, I've had BT Broadband for over 3 years, including one move of house, and no problems. I just called them up and ordered it, and a few days later there it was.
anyway here's a little tip for our friend, which may even be of use in the USA: If you are moving house, why not call up the relevant service providers a week or two BEFORE YOU MOVE, tell them your moving date and ask them to have it ready for when you arrive. Of course, the problem then is tht Slashdot is unlikely to publish your "my dream installation" story.
"Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state."
You missed out the word "unreasonably" (since the amendment protects only against unreasonable searches). Stopping people and random and asking for their papers I would agree was unreasonable (though it's common enough in almost every non-common law country). Checking ID because there are solid grounds to think you're a wanted criminal, though, that sounds reasonable enough. Checking ID to board a plane... maybe before 9/11 that would have been unreasonable but now most people would probably think it's fair enough. It's a question of where to draw the line.
As I explained in another post, when the law says "malice" it means "intention", not ill-will. That's why it's still murder to kill your bedridden, cancer-ridden, paralysed mother who is begging for someone to end her unbearable life.
What makes capital punishment not murder from a legal standpoint is not the absence of malice, but the fact that it is defined as lawful. If an executioner killed a condemned prisoner other than in accordance with the law - e.g. hanged when the law required legal injection - then that would be murder.
Never make the mistake of confusing the law with morality.
Slashdot Mirror
ANot surprising: higher temperature -> oceans heat up -> less dissolved CO2.
Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water? I think you'll find it's the same with CO2. Better find another explanation.
>>This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it.
Actually the large majority of Christians (aka Roman Catholics) have no problem with macro evolution. It's official doctrine. It's based in the ancient Christian belief that the understanding the Universe is one of the best ways of understanding the God who created it. The idea that the workings of the world itself is as much a testament to God's will as the Bible. It's the minority of hardcore evangelicals (who somehow seem to have a strangehold on middle America) who prefer to believe that hard evidence must always give way to their fixed, particular interpretation of scripture.
Actually the appropriate analogy is not with a public library. It's with a regular web search engine.
If it's a breach of copyright to index books without permission and allow people to search them (even though you only show users a snippet at a time), then it's equally a breach to index web pages. Websites are just as worthy of copyright protection as books.
Can you imagine a judge ruling that web search is illegal? Even if there was a prima facie breach of copyright in indexing the content for commercial gain, my guess is the courts will find a way out, either by extending fair use or (more likely) pointing out that there's no way publishers (web or online) can prove a loss from such activities, indeed it's almost inevitable that they gain, if only they weren't so block headed not to notice.
(You know, judges aren't as crazy or out of touch as you might think. Supreme court excepted, of course.)
Probably. It have must been pretty smart to always win at a game where it's mathematically proven that it's always possible to force a draw. Either that or MIT students are better at building computers than playing tic-tac-toe.
The genius move with the video iPod is that it's not a separate range. From now on, the regular iPod plays video too. That means that millions of people who would have just bought an iPod are now getting a video iPod. Millions will by a video player almost by default.
Up until now, no-one has managed to shift portable video players because the customer doesn't see a need for them. But some time someone will work out how to make video on the move work, whether it's as a mobile movie library or some watch-on-the-move content. When that time comes, Apple will be in an unassailable position because they will have a virtual stranglehold on the videoplayer market already.
You have to hand to Steve.
the post said invented, not implemented. Read Montesquieu , Voltaire, Locke et al. if you want to see where the idea came from.
The US constitution may be a marvellous document, but it was not dreamed up from scratch by a bunch of hick plantation owners and yankee merchants (aka founding fathers). It's more of a greatest hits compilation of 18th century European social philosophy.
>>I've been to Europe enough to see that the attitudes of the citizens about driving is pretty abysmal.
Sure, because Europe is this homogenous country with one continent-wide attitude. (hint: sarcasm).
Just because you've seen Italians or Frenchmen careering around like homicidal maniacs it doesn't mean that the Finnish are the same. (FWIW, in Italy you can get on a motor scooter at 14 without any licence.)
And if you really want a like-for-like comparison between Finland and the US, note that much of Finland is above the arctic circle and the rest is pretty close. So for half the year Fins drive in near darkness on icy roads. Might be a bit tricky than coasting down the freeway in LA. How does Finland's road safety record compare with Alaska?
they don't have the scratching architecture because mostly they're not (i) white (ii) shiny, so the scratches don't show so much.
They still build some things well. I'm writing this on an iBook G4 which 2 days ago was accidentally catapulted some 4 ft in the air (note to self: do not leave computer on bean bag), landing on its side. About a year ago it was yanked off my desk (screen open) when I tripped on the power cord. Power adapter didn't survive that one but as for the machine itself... not a scratch, not a malfunction. Still, glad I've got carpet.
Your method would be great except that it relies on you carrying around and frequently consulting a piece of paper in your wallet. As such it's only marginally less secure than just carrying around a note of your passwords in the first place.
How long would it take someone observing you to figure out what you were doing and swipe your wallet? (In an office it would probably be easy for a thief to xerox your codesheet). Then they just need a few guesses for your trivial "unencrypted" password and they're in.
Not my idea of great security.
Maybe that's the position in the US, but in the UK you have to be sure the item was stolen to be convicted for handling. Reasonable suspicion isn't enough.
>>You see, that's the difference between science and superstition. Science makes predictions which can be tested. That's why it sometimes changes. Superstition is not testable. That's why it stays the same.
I dunno about superstition being untestable. I have this superstition about a particularly lucky set of underwear. And when I wear it things go pretty well. But sometimes I think I shouldn't be so superstitious, so I take them off. And that's when it all goes wrong.
>> It would have been much easier to fix the problems then, than after 9/11 and several years of recession. Exactly. After all, it's not like back in the 90s people didn't see 9/11 or the recession coming. That's why we all moved out of tech stocks before the crash and put those anti-hijack measures into place, right? From what I've seen in the news, it was Bush who cut funding to the levees and ignored pleas that more money was needed, it was Bush who sent half the National Guard abroad, and it was Bush who reoriented FEMA's priorities away from natural disasters. BTW, do you have concrete information that the levees were in bad shape under Clinton or do you just assume that if they were neglected now they must have also been neglected then?
sources, please. I believe the time/fruit example is courtesy of Groucho Marx, so credit where it's due.
Not the whole story. Unlike the US Constitution, the European Constitution also has consumer protection (II 98) and anti-trust clauses (III-161 to III-169) and the whole needs to be read together.
So if the EU constitution was passed it would be _unconstitutional_ for companies to engage in competition-distorting practices.
Remember that there's very little new in the Euro Constitution. Almost all of it - including IP protection and antitrust measures (see e.g. articles 81-86 of the EC treaty) - is lifted from earlier treaties. And there's plenty of caselaw to show that in most cases, the antitrust provisions win out over IP rights.
And yes, I am a lawyer currently working on European antitrust cases, so I know what I'm talking about.
"Lots of people like these 30-50 year old women"
Too right. There's millions of us pervs after mature women. I, for instance, have quite a thing for Angelina Jolie (30), J-Lo (35), and even Sharon Stone (47). Bring on the old women.
Better quote- obiwan to Yoda: "I can't watch it any more"
Maybe I'm evil, but I actually find it easier to empathise with Emperor and Vader than the Jedi. I mean, basically the jedi are a bunch of joyless, characterless goody-two-shoes. The only likeable jedi in episodes 1-3 is Yoda, and that's because he's green and talks funny, not because he's sympathetic. Obiwan's only human moments are when he actually shows he cares about Anakin (a most un-Jedi thing to do).
Look at the end of Ep III. Yoda sends Obiwan off to kill his best friend without a smidgeon of sympathy. And yet the Emperor seems genuinely concerned about Vader, going off in person to save him when he should be tracking down Yoda and Obiwan and at a point when he basically has no need of Vader any more anyway. Seems the old man has a soft spot for Vader. He may be an evil megalomaniac, but at least he has emotions.
well not being divorced, I have one up on him. Or possibly one down.
I've decided there is only one explanation for the undescribable awfulness of Ep III's (and II's) "romantic" scenes.
George Lucas is a true geek and has never had a girlfriend in his life. It is possible he has never spoken to a woman he wasn't related to in a social context.
Seriously. To make Natalie Portman into an unconvincing lover takes some special skill.
(What confuses me is that by contrast the best written scenes in Ep IV-VI are Han and Leia's combative flirting. But I think Harrison Ford made most of that up himself.)
Please please please will people stop this ill-informed lawyer dissing. Yes I know it's the public stereotype but please hear a lawyer's perspective on this:
Lawyers do not act for themselves. Lawyers act for clients. IP lawyers do not want to extend software patents. Companies that employ IP lawyers do, and as long as the lawyer works on that job he will try and extend software patents. If the next week the law firm is hired by the Free Software Foundation- or the European Parliament - those same lawyers will work just as hard to restrict software patents.
Every time you hear about a stupid lawsuit, remember - there are lawyers working for both sides. Every time IBM chalks up a victory over SCO, it's still lawyers doing the work.
If you're going to draft a law to restrict software patents, who are you going to ask to do it? A geek whose words will be putty in the hand of the next decent lawyer hired by Microsoft, or the best IP lawyer you can find who will know how to make it watertight (until someone finds a better laywer).
Sure, it would be nice if we could all get along without lawyers, but we can't. Sure, there are a lot of dumb lawyers, a lot of unpleasant lawyers. But even so they're just doing their masters; bidding.
So call us intellectual whores, because we sell our arguments to the highest bidder. Call us dogs, because we're loyal to whoever throws us the next bone. Call us amoral, to the extent that we'll work for anyone. But don't call us evil, in the sense that we want any particular dastardly outcome for ourselves. To misuse the cry of the NRA, lawyers don't kill people, people do.
In a way it's unfortunate this had to come out of the mouth of the RIAA, because she does have a pretty good point. IMHO (and yes, IAAL and know a fair bit of competition law), Apple is behaving anticompetitively. There's no objective reason - either technological or beneficial to the consumer - why the iPod should not work with any music store, or iTMS with any other player.
The only reason for a lock-in is to protect Apple's bottom line and stifle competitors.
Think about it. If the iTMS/iPod combination is superior to the competition, then that's what consumers will choose anyway. So no need to lock in as long as your product is the best.
But what if someone releases a superior music player. Clearly iPod owners with significant iTMS collections are unlikely to switch. With the iPod by far and away the dominant player, that creates a big barrier for others to enter the market.
Or what about when your iPod breaks, or simply becomes obsolete. Again, if you've dropped $1000s on iTMS tracks, are you even going to consider another player, even if it's half the price?
Or what about when someone else comes up with a superior, or simply much cheaper, music store. If the dominant music player can't use it, it's going to have a hard time competing.
Result? Locking iPod and iTMS together results in higher iPod and iTMS prices and less incentive to innovate from competitors. Sounds pretty anticompetitive to me.
Is it possible to mod down a story?
Sheesh. One guy has a bad install (mostly caused by his landlord, it seems), and it's generalised into a country-wide experience.
First, factual errors galore.:
"As I understand it, there are a certain number of fixed telephone lines in Britain. These lines are highly prized, as each homeowner leases the line from British Telecom"
Clearly, he doesn't understand it. He makes it sound like people have to fight with their neighbours to get a line! I think his information was last updated circa 1980, when it was true everywhere in the world. If you want a new line, all you do is phone up BT (or another operator in your area - yes, they do exist to correct another error) and they will add one. Ah, the magic of digital exchanges.
"Each homeowner must politely ask British Telecom for a number, and only one number may be given out per line."
As explained, BT is no longer a monopoly (it has a local monopolyin some areas, but I recall that Bell Atlantic had a monopoly when I lived in Boston so that's hardly UK-specific). And to say "only one number can be given out per line" - duh, that's how a line is defined. It does NOT mean that only one number is available per address. All you do is call BT or whoever and explain you want more "lines".
"For reference, let's review the procedure for obtaining broadband in the U.S. Step #1: Call up your cable or DSL provider, walk through the options, and decide what you want. Step #2: Receive and install the modem, or have an installer do it for you."
So he's not comparing like-with-like. First he spends a page whinging about how long it took him to get a phone line. Then he compares it to the US situation _starting from the point where he already has a phone line_.
Let's have a like-for-like comparison, please. What is the process for getting broadband in California when you just moved into an apartment, the landlord previously had broadband and only asked his provider to switch the day he moved out, and you didn't do anything about it until the day you moved in?
For the record, I've had BT Broadband for over 3 years, including one move of house, and no problems. I just called them up and ordered it, and a few days later there it was.
anyway here's a little tip for our friend, which may even be of use in the USA: If you are moving house, why not call up the relevant service providers a week or two BEFORE YOU MOVE, tell them your moving date and ask them to have it ready for when you arrive. Of course, the problem then is tht Slashdot is unlikely to publish your "my dream installation" story.
"Security of my papers includes the right to not have to show ID to an agent of the state."
You missed out the word "unreasonably" (since the amendment protects only against unreasonable searches). Stopping people and random and asking for their papers I would agree was unreasonable (though it's common enough in almost every non-common law country). Checking ID because there are solid grounds to think you're a wanted criminal, though, that sounds reasonable enough. Checking ID to board a plane... maybe before 9/11 that would have been unreasonable but now most people would probably think it's fair enough. It's a question of where to draw the line.
As I explained in another post, when the law says "malice" it means "intention", not ill-will. That's why it's still murder to kill your bedridden, cancer-ridden, paralysed mother who is begging for someone to end her unbearable life.
What makes capital punishment not murder from a legal standpoint is not the absence of malice, but the fact that it is defined as lawful. If an executioner killed a condemned prisoner other than in accordance with the law - e.g. hanged when the law required legal injection - then that would be murder.
Never make the mistake of confusing the law with morality.