However, the rest of the jurors don't want to reveal too much about our deliberation process for their own privacy concerns. The final verdict was for $4.5 million.
If it were the bending, then wouldn't the energy densities depend on the material used to create the shape?
That's probably the reason why it's an algebraic equation and not just a tensor. No, I agree with the other poster that it's probably a result of the bending. OTOH, IANAT.
There is no reason to suspect that terrorists will ever gain the infrastructure needed to launch intermediate-range missiles. If they do, they aren't terrorists any more, but hostile nation-states in their own right. Playing the "terrorism" card to justify pork-barrel handouts to defense contractors may be the trendy thing to do in Washington, but there is no reason why the rest of us should sit still for it. It's our money, after all.
Hostile nation-states, such as Iran, in the Middle East, which the missile shield is ostensibly being built to protect us from? You do realize that no one played the "terrorism card", yet, right? I carefully chose my phrasing to avoid doing exactly that.;) That said, I agree that it's probably not the threat to be most worried about and is not a good use of our resources. I'm just trying to keep the debate lively, and not actually trying to argue that the missile shield makes sense.:)
I know nothing about SO, but OO.o is a lot like MS Office. I've heard that macros is one shortcoming in OO.o (although that might be just compatibility), I've used both MS Office and OO.o, on the same machine, even, and I don't have to switch my mental mode when using one versus the other. By comparison, I used WordPerfect before using MS Word, and that did require a mental shift. What makes you think they're not that similar? (Perhaps your point is that OO.o is no less different from MS Office 2003 than Office 2007 is, and there I won't disagree, as I know nothing about the difference between '07 and '03.)
(P.S. The insulting term used by the poster you're responding to was totally uncalled for. I wish such people would learn to control their Tourette's-like typing skills.)
I wasn't trying to insult anyone (car manufactures or the RIAA) by the comparison, just stating that I'm sure they both use actuaries to calculate expected costs, etc. You're absolutely right that there's no simple ethical choice that is obviously correct. One has to, at the end of the day, attribute some dollar value to an anonymous human life if you want to decide algorithmically on the best course of action. Saving everyone's lives (if it were possible) at the cost of abject poverty and misery probably isn't the most ethical thing to do. Allowing people to make their own choices (and not hiding the actual risks from them), I think is more ethical, although it is admittedly never black and white. As you say, let them decide between the $20k car and $100k car.
On a side note, I was on a trial a while back where we were deciding how much money to award a plaintiff for the loss of a father. We all agreed rather quickly on the liability of the defendant, and we agreed very easily on a reasonable figure for the expected lifetime earnings, but the hardest part was trying to decide what was the value of a father? More than one juror (rightly) pointed out that one could not put a price tag on that. However, (and I'm not sure I ever completely conveyed this point to one of them), by not putting a price tag on that, we were effectively putting a price tag of $0 on it. I don't want to give all the details, but I am satisfied with the final dollar value that we came up with.
The RIAA members will merely consider it the cost of doing business.
This is almost definitely true. Just like car manufacturers have actuaries that calculate the expected number of deaths from a design flaw and whether they can withstand the expected legal costs, etc., I have no doubt that the RIAA is doing exactly the same thing here.
However, and this is an important point, this ruling has just increased the cost of doing business "as usual" for the RIAA. Their actuaries suddenly have to adjust the parameters in their equations accordingly. That makes this ruling a good thing and not revolting, IMO.
I did address the Cessna question (the whole flippant part about flying naked). The missile shield (hopefully) would be part of a larger solution. It would prevent missiles from hitting you, not Cessnas, hence the name. Ideally, you would also have a solution for Cessnas. Call it a Cessna shield, if you like.
Again, I'm no advocate for missile shields, but I will point out the fallacy of saying things similar to "because aspirin won't cure cancer, it shouldn't be used for headaches". For that matter, being somewhat more realistic, there is no cure for (most) cancers (just like there might not be a good Cessna shield). That doesn't mean we shouldn't have cures for those things we can cure (or at least treat).
In analyzing the missile shield, the real question is what it won't stop so much as what it will stop, the likelihood of that event happening (with and without the shield), and the cost of the shield (in economic, political, military, and possibly environmental or social senses). I.e., the real question is does the benefit of the missile shield outweigh its costs? I think the answer to that is probably "no", but the Cessna perspective is not really addressing what the missile shield is designed for.
(One admitted flaw with the aspirin analogy is that the headache won't deliberately choose to morph into cancer once it sees that you have aspirin.)
CitySearch seemed to favor the large chains more than Yelp, and didn't even report Mellow Mushroom. It also seemed to have a larger definition of Charlottesville without returning a significantly different number of results. (I.e., the density of results from Yelp was much better - I could have walked to most of the locations recommended by Yelp, but not those from CitySearch.)
Just thought I'd throw my not necessarily representative experience out there.
Although I have no idea about the accuracy of the provide information, the source makes me suspicious. CEI has an extremely strong agenda. This is not peer-reviewed science we're talking about. Do a little research on CEI, and you might hesitate from using them as a source again. Again, they might actually be right about this one, I really don't know. However, I'd bet they've probably at the very least exaggerated the science, if indeed any was used.
I realize this might seem like an ad hominem attack, but reading this article is kind of like going over to the boy who cried "wolf" to see if this time, in fact, there is a wolf.
It does have a lot of restaurants for Charlottesville. However, they're not all placed correctly relative to each other. Some are misplaced by as much as a third a mile or so. (That might not seem like much, but it is if you're walking from the UVA campus!) Thanks for the link, though.
A Google search was less than helpful. Can you provide more information about CityPoint? I have not seen any TeleAtlas cars in my city (Charlottesville, Virginia), and I suspect there might not be any near Bill's Deli, either.:)
There's good hope that the solution you suggest will work great for Charlottesville (college town full of tech-savvy people), but I don't know how well it will work for Bill's Deli in more rural areas. Eventually, perhaps, but I don't see it happening soon.
Actually, I think the GP's point wasn't that Arby's was trying to lock out Bill's Deli, but rather that Bill (of Bill's Deli) doesn't understand why he should need a web presence, etc. I've often done web searches to try to find the hours of operation on some of my favorite eating places only to find that they don't have a web presence. I can usually find an article on them by the local paper, but those don't always have the hours of operation (or a menu).
I'm just reporting what's been in the news. I definitely wasn't say it was a good idea - I was just trying to clarify the context around it.
OTOH, playing devil's advocate, a missile shield would (theoretically) stop missiles coming from a terrorist group were they to acquire one. It would presumably not be meant to stand alone but rather be part of an entire well thought out system (stop giggling). You could scan for dirty bombs at the border, have great devices for detecting pathogens, make your airline passengers fly naked, but none of that will stop a missile coming towards your country any more than a missile shield would prevent the discreet release of poisons into the drinking water.
I've used a Timex GPS device during my runs for several years now, and I've never had it be that far off, but there have been occasions where I've managed to pull a 2-minute mile. I've just assumed that the GPS training has been very effective.;)
Misguided or not, the missile shield is not intended to divide you. If you want to argue that will be an unfortunate side effect, that's one thing, but if you seriously believe that it's part of a strategy of divide-and-conquer, then I truly think you're putting motives in there that don't exist.
Now, assuming that you merely meant that it would be an unfortunate side effect, you also should realize that Poland and the Czech Republic dearly want us to put the missile shield in their countries (or at least their governments do). I'm not arguing that's a sufficient reason to do so - I'm just pointing out that we're not imposing this on them. They want it. This came out quite strongly after Putin suggested that it be put in Azerbaijan instead, if the goal was truly to protect Europe from a Middle East attack.
I suspect that if you saw a simple mathematical formula and a fun abbreviation in your old plate, you'll find one soon enough for your new plate. We humans are excellent at detecting patterns, whether or not they're there. Depending on how secure you feel, you can post or e-mail it to me, and I'll give you a new mnemonic.
I find that funny coming from the same person who wrote:
No, ethanol and biodiesel are the darlings of a group of environmentalists whose cause is just about trying to destroy Exxon, Shell and others (*). They don't give a crap about the environment and they would gladly defend taking out a lot of the amazon forest just to grow sugar cane and replace those big corporations.
and:
Except that some enviro-nuts are actually motivated to destroy oil companies.
I do not believe I was any less polite than that. By the way, I also do not believe you've been rude, either. I believe you've honestly expressed your belief, which is exactly what I was doing. If you really believe the motivations of more than 10% of the activist environmentalists (as you've said elsewhere) is to destroy oil companies with no regard to the environment, then, well, I believe that's delusional.
Is it because you know you're wrong, and you're mad at me for pointing it out? My main point wasn't the definition of "some". Sure, some can mean less than 1%, but in a meaningful, thought-out discussion, one would make a point of clarifying the "some" comment, if that were the case.
I believe they're even more than 10% of the whole activist "market". Lots of people turn to the environment cause just because they need a reason to live, because they can't seem to fit anywhere else and they hijack a very important cause just to fill a void.
I have no doubt you believe that, which was the reason for my first response to you. That you believe this came across in that post I responded to. You have now confirmed the assumption you later seemed to be implying that I had erroneously made. Turning to the environment "just because they need a reason to live" (don't more of these people turn to religion?), is not the same as wanting to destroy oil companies.
I don't think your problem is that you're not communicating effectively. I believe you made yourself clear on your first post. It's just that you're beliefs are indicative of a delusional mind. That might sound rude to you, but I'm just being honest. Also, regarding your previous comments on my rude response, I don't see how it's any ruder than slandering environmentalists. In your defense, however, I also think you were just honestly conveying your own personal beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the rest of the jurors don't want to reveal too much about our deliberation process for their own privacy concerns. The final verdict was for $4.5 million.
Well, them, and occasionally Star Trek writers.
Energy is power times time, or force times distance.
But, fair is fair. OO.o also let them have 500 seats for free. :)
I know nothing about SO, but OO.o is a lot like MS Office. I've heard that macros is one shortcoming in OO.o (although that might be just compatibility), I've used both MS Office and OO.o, on the same machine, even, and I don't have to switch my mental mode when using one versus the other. By comparison, I used WordPerfect before using MS Word, and that did require a mental shift. What makes you think they're not that similar? (Perhaps your point is that OO.o is no less different from MS Office 2003 than Office 2007 is, and there I won't disagree, as I know nothing about the difference between '07 and '03.)
(P.S. The insulting term used by the poster you're responding to was totally uncalled for. I wish such people would learn to control their Tourette's-like typing skills.)
I wasn't trying to insult anyone (car manufactures or the RIAA) by the comparison, just stating that I'm sure they both use actuaries to calculate expected costs, etc. You're absolutely right that there's no simple ethical choice that is obviously correct. One has to, at the end of the day, attribute some dollar value to an anonymous human life if you want to decide algorithmically on the best course of action. Saving everyone's lives (if it were possible) at the cost of abject poverty and misery probably isn't the most ethical thing to do. Allowing people to make their own choices (and not hiding the actual risks from them), I think is more ethical, although it is admittedly never black and white. As you say, let them decide between the $20k car and $100k car.
On a side note, I was on a trial a while back where we were deciding how much money to award a plaintiff for the loss of a father. We all agreed rather quickly on the liability of the defendant, and we agreed very easily on a reasonable figure for the expected lifetime earnings, but the hardest part was trying to decide what was the value of a father? More than one juror (rightly) pointed out that one could not put a price tag on that. However, (and I'm not sure I ever completely conveyed this point to one of them), by not putting a price tag on that, we were effectively putting a price tag of $0 on it. I don't want to give all the details, but I am satisfied with the final dollar value that we came up with.
This is almost definitely true. Just like car manufacturers have actuaries that calculate the expected number of deaths from a design flaw and whether they can withstand the expected legal costs, etc., I have no doubt that the RIAA is doing exactly the same thing here.
However, and this is an important point, this ruling has just increased the cost of doing business "as usual" for the RIAA. Their actuaries suddenly have to adjust the parameters in their equations accordingly. That makes this ruling a good thing and not revolting, IMO.
What did you get your Ph.D in? Those figures definitely aren't typical for a CS Ph.D.
I did address the Cessna question (the whole flippant part about flying naked). The missile shield (hopefully) would be part of a larger solution. It would prevent missiles from hitting you, not Cessnas, hence the name. Ideally, you would also have a solution for Cessnas. Call it a Cessna shield, if you like.
Again, I'm no advocate for missile shields, but I will point out the fallacy of saying things similar to "because aspirin won't cure cancer, it shouldn't be used for headaches". For that matter, being somewhat more realistic, there is no cure for (most) cancers (just like there might not be a good Cessna shield). That doesn't mean we shouldn't have cures for those things we can cure (or at least treat).
In analyzing the missile shield, the real question is what it won't stop so much as what it will stop, the likelihood of that event happening (with and without the shield), and the cost of the shield (in economic, political, military, and possibly environmental or social senses). I.e., the real question is does the benefit of the missile shield outweigh its costs? I think the answer to that is probably "no", but the Cessna perspective is not really addressing what the missile shield is designed for.
(One admitted flaw with the aspirin analogy is that the headache won't deliberately choose to morph into cancer once it sees that you have aspirin.)
At least on my "pizza" test. :)
CitySearch seemed to favor the large chains more than Yelp, and didn't even report Mellow Mushroom. It also seemed to have a larger definition of Charlottesville without returning a significantly different number of results. (I.e., the density of results from Yelp was much better - I could have walked to most of the locations recommended by Yelp, but not those from CitySearch.)
Just thought I'd throw my not necessarily representative experience out there.
Although I have no idea about the accuracy of the provide information, the source makes me suspicious. CEI has an extremely strong agenda. This is not peer-reviewed science we're talking about. Do a little research on CEI, and you might hesitate from using them as a source again. Again, they might actually be right about this one, I really don't know. However, I'd bet they've probably at the very least exaggerated the science, if indeed any was used.
I realize this might seem like an ad hominem attack, but reading this article is kind of like going over to the boy who cried "wolf" to see if this time, in fact, there is a wolf.
It does have a lot of restaurants for Charlottesville. However, they're not all placed correctly relative to each other. Some are misplaced by as much as a third a mile or so. (That might not seem like much, but it is if you're walking from the UVA campus!) Thanks for the link, though.
A Google search was less than helpful. Can you provide more information about CityPoint? I have not seen any TeleAtlas cars in my city (Charlottesville, Virginia), and I suspect there might not be any near Bill's Deli, either. :)
There's good hope that the solution you suggest will work great for Charlottesville (college town full of tech-savvy people), but I don't know how well it will work for Bill's Deli in more rural areas. Eventually, perhaps, but I don't see it happening soon.
Actually, I think the GP's point wasn't that Arby's was trying to lock out Bill's Deli, but rather that Bill (of Bill's Deli) doesn't understand why he should need a web presence, etc. I've often done web searches to try to find the hours of operation on some of my favorite eating places only to find that they don't have a web presence. I can usually find an article on them by the local paper, but those don't always have the hours of operation (or a menu).
I'm just reporting what's been in the news. I definitely wasn't say it was a good idea - I was just trying to clarify the context around it.
OTOH, playing devil's advocate, a missile shield would (theoretically) stop missiles coming from a terrorist group were they to acquire one. It would presumably not be meant to stand alone but rather be part of an entire well thought out system (stop giggling). You could scan for dirty bombs at the border, have great devices for detecting pathogens, make your airline passengers fly naked, but none of that will stop a missile coming towards your country any more than a missile shield would prevent the discreet release of poisons into the drinking water.
I've used a Timex GPS device during my runs for several years now, and I've never had it be that far off, but there have been occasions where I've managed to pull a 2-minute mile. I've just assumed that the GPS training has been very effective. ;)
Misguided or not, the missile shield is not intended to divide you. If you want to argue that will be an unfortunate side effect, that's one thing, but if you seriously believe that it's part of a strategy of divide-and-conquer, then I truly think you're putting motives in there that don't exist.
Now, assuming that you merely meant that it would be an unfortunate side effect, you also should realize that Poland and the Czech Republic dearly want us to put the missile shield in their countries (or at least their governments do). I'm not arguing that's a sufficient reason to do so - I'm just pointing out that we're not imposing this on them. They want it. This came out quite strongly after Putin suggested that it be put in Azerbaijan instead, if the goal was truly to protect Europe from a Middle East attack.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. :)
I suspect that if you saw a simple mathematical formula and a fun abbreviation in your old plate, you'll find one soon enough for your new plate. We humans are excellent at detecting patterns, whether or not they're there. Depending on how secure you feel, you can post or e-mail it to me, and I'll give you a new mnemonic.
Is it because you know you're wrong, and you're mad at me for pointing it out? My main point wasn't the definition of "some". Sure, some can mean less than 1%, but in a meaningful, thought-out discussion, one would make a point of clarifying the "some" comment, if that were the case.
I have no doubt you believe that, which was the reason for my first response to you. That you believe this came across in that post I responded to. You have now confirmed the assumption you later seemed to be implying that I had erroneously made. Turning to the environment "just because they need a reason to live" (don't more of these people turn to religion?), is not the same as wanting to destroy oil companies.
I don't think your problem is that you're not communicating effectively. I believe you made yourself clear on your first post. It's just that you're beliefs are indicative of a delusional mind. That might sound rude to you, but I'm just being honest. Also, regarding your previous comments on my rude response, I don't see how it's any ruder than slandering environmentalists. In your defense, however, I also think you were just honestly conveying your own personal beliefs.