Questions:
Why aren't cancer rates much higher in nations with significantly more cell phones/coverage- say, Japan for example?
Why hasn't brain cancer increased in the last 20 years as cell phone usage has gone from near zero to a major percentage of the population? I also don't hear much about "cancer of the hip"...
Too early to tell. Cancer is usually about 10years in development. We will see.
Why haven't cancer rates jumped for people living near cell phone towers?
See above, plus the phone towers are very far away compared to the phone in your hand. The inverse square law again.
Why is it that the same people who sue cell phone companies over a tower near their house go home each night and pop dinner in a 1200W microwave emitter?
Because cell phones are new. New stuff is always blamed for all sorts of things. Plus the US system of civil suits are severely broken, so it sometimes pays to sue more or less randomly.
Why is it that hundreds of millions microwaves are in use today? Why is it that dozens of words tossed around in tin foil articles articles are made-up, like "d-Nitrosodienthanolamines"? Google that, and notice that the only place google can find it is in the same sentence: "d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well known carcinogen". If it's so well known, how come you can only find references to it in Tin Foil Hat articles?
Because tin foil hats can't spell? It's probably something like Dinitroamino ethanolamine or similar. And google is not the best place to find chemical data (=such data tend to cost money).
Answer: because cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer at any rate appreciable from statistical noise, IF AT ALL.
You are probably right, but we can't conclude this quite yet. Ask again in 10 years.
Do you realize the gasolene vapor and diesel fumes are far more likely to give you cancer, that they're both known, proven, undisputed carcinogens?
Are you seriously suggesting that people give up their holy cows^H^H^H^Hcars instead of going after big corporations?
You can't simply say, "patents are good," or "patents are evil," or that they hinder or encourage innovation. It's not that simple.
That may be, or not be. It's still guesswork. I say, do not base law on guesswork, make them on facts. If no facts can be produced, the effect is not strong enough to warrant the complications of law.
My heart tells me that patents would be good, if the patent period was shortened to match the rapid pace of todays technology. For software patents, I would say 3 years, no longer than 5.
But this is just gut feeling; I would rather have a study and exchange the guts with facts
PS: Yes, the islamic fundamentalism is a great irony, and a bigger shame, in the light of former glory. Hopefully, religions will some day again be able to cooperate again; or better yet, die the death they so richly deserver. Ah, a man might dream, but such is no likely to pass in my lifetime.
Difficult, but not impossible. Patents does not currently cover everything everywhere. Is there less/more/as much innovation in such areas? What happens when patents are introduced to a previously unregulated area? And so on.
If we don't know, and do not have a reasonable idea that patents effects our society in a positive way, we should not have the patents system --- that would be creating a large, administrative burden for everyone with no verifiable gain.
Has there ever been some study or likewise that support patents, in the sense that they show an increase in innovation in areas that are patent regulated?
states that tax alcohol and it's a crime to bring (over a very limited qty) it into the state from other states.
It's not a crime to bring over however much alcohol you like. You just have to pay the taxes. How do you think the CH_3CH_2OH made it into your state in the first place?
I'm assuming here that your local law (US?) is not totally insane
why, oh why, is NULL considered to be more clear than 0?
In C, this is because 0 != NULL. NULL = (void*) 0. This makes a difference in function calls, where calling myfoo(int a) with myfoo(NULL) is a compiler error/warning, but myfoo(0) is legal.
In C++, NULL = 0. Really. Here's the header from gcc (well, really the kernel):
This is because C++ has points to members, I believe (not sure, don't use void* pointers). Instead I use this struct, which IMHO should be included in STL (slightly shortened in the interest of brevity, and written from memory, so may not compile):
The first member ensures that my_null can be converted to any pointer other than pointer-to-member, and the last one takes care of those. This method makes the C case above work as it should, i.e. give an error.
As for clarity, it separates two concepts: The NULL pointer (a pointer pointing to nothing) and 0 (an integer).
As an aside, I actually prefer !p, since it say to me "If p not a valid pointer....". But I can handle both:)
No program should take 14mbs of storage space, especially a web browser, and most certainly not a minimum of 20megs active memory (that bloats well into the 70s given enough time), which is where the latetest realease of firefox is.
The 80s computer screen were typically 320x200, 4bits or so. That is, the application has to control about 32kb, give or take. A modern screen is 1600x1200x32bit, or 7680kb. Or about 240 times or 2.4 orders of magnitudes. More processing power than you think are put into this sink, IMHO.
Google seems to managed without pop-ups or pop-unders, and without animated ads. I never block static images or text-only ads. I always block popup and pop under (without noticing). Animated falls in between: I avoid sites with (too many of) those.
It is perfectly possible that when a SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 a both present/combined, some trick will break the combined algorithm. Indeed this is just as likely as either algorithm having a flaw.
That is the heart of the problem.
If we are talking brute-forcing, it would be simpler (=fewer bugs) to just double the length of one hashing function.
I get a "The certificate was not issued for this host" when I try to enter (via https --- http should be dead and buried for anything remotely sensitive, and that does include paypal).
That was with Konquoror. The link doesn't work in firefox for some reason.
Well, you wouldn't trust a site that doesn't present a valid certificate. The problem is that obtaining such is too expensive for many.
We need a reliable way for the a domain owner to get a certificate issued for that domain. This is mostly a bureaucratic problem, which could be solved, people willing.
Mainly it talks about how parts of the IT sector wants to block the contensted directive and how the proponents have been unable to get through due to effective lobbyism from the contensters.
Do you mean that you have to be selling or trading something with the TM to be infringing? What if I gave away a thousand cans of my own soda with the word "Coca Cola" written on the side -- is that OK?! statement.
No, that would using Coca Cola as a trade mark. But writing "Taste just like Coca Cola" on the side would be ok, since you are referring to the name. Or so I understand.
The (US) law is not relevant in what I call stealing. I use theft/stealing for a wide range of misappropriation. I believe this is a common usage, much more common than the law. E.g, Shakespeare refers to pirates as "Salt water thieves", though pirates robs rather than steals.
As for "not depriving the copyright holder", I don't buy that. Read my earlier comment. You deprieve him of the exclusive right to copy the thing, and devaluate the selling potential while he himself gains a copy of the copyright matrial. Thus, it is stealing. Calling it anything else is, IMHO, splitting hairs.
Copyright infringers are thieves. The argument about pirates are things aboard a ship is just silly. A word can have more than 1 meaning. A pirate might be a salt water robber, or a somebody who copies copyrighted material [with the intent to sell]
Murderers are not a priori thieves, for they gain nothing (material) from the act of murdering.
And to reprise that "hat" analogy, take the drummer for James Brown's band. He's arguably the most sampled musician ever by a long chalk.
The RIAA should be making him a multi-millionaire. But by now you see it doesn't quite work like that.
I don't know about if he should or not. What I see is stealing, even if it is from those evil RIAA. Now, you might argue that stealing is ok in some situations (I agree) and you might further argue that copying music is such a situation (I do not agree). The point remains: Filesharing of copyrighted works in the manner described n posts up is stealing in my book. I don't think I am alone in point of view.
B.4 Don't volcanoes naturally release far more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than humans?
Response: No. On a global scale, volcanoes release less than 1% of human emissions of carbon dioxide and hence are a minor contributor to changes in its atmospheric concentrations. Furthermore, emissions from volcanoes have always been part of the natural cycle, which has been in approximate balance for many millennia, until the industrial revolution.
Explanation: Most recent estimates by volcanic experts with the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that, globally, volcanoes release about 150 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. By comparison, humans annually emit more than 22 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion alone, and another 6 or so Gt of CO2 from deforestation activities. That is more than 100 times as great as volcanic emissions.
Mount Etna, in Sicily, is the largest single volcanic emitter of CO2, estimated at 25 Mt of CO2 per year. By comparison, emissions from Mount St. Helens following its eruption several decades ago were less than 2 Mt of CO2/year.
Stealing is stealing, no matter who you steal from.
I know the publishers get the lions share. What has that to do with stealing? The artists could use another publisher, or publish by some other means. Nothing is stopping them. They could put up a web site and offers songs for download; they could get the CDs printed themselves, make a co-op (is that the word?) to do so etc. The fact that they don't is very interesting.
I don't believe we need illegal means to change this. On the other hand, the P2P-shares have caused everyone to pay in Europe, as many countries have imposed a tax on storage media to recompensate the publishers for lost income. That sucks.
Thieves cost everybody money and effort, since now we have to deal with copyright protections, CSS, locks&keys and so on. All due to fileshares and digital "pirates" So I have little love for that brethern.
And to answer you last question, nobody is forcing the artists (and don't tell me some of the richer artist don't have the economic power to do so). So it's still wrong to steal copyrighted material.
I believe taking something from a shop, taking it home and then bringing it back to the store before the next customer shows up is also stealing. I believe that the copyright holder might have sold you the right to copy that music, and this right he lost when you downloaded it. For me, it's that simple. I know not everybody agrees with me, and that's fine with me. But I reserve the right to call something thieving when I believe it is, and it is within a reasonable interpretation of the english word.
And your argument only holds if you only download and never listens to what you download. Somehow, I don't believe that is typical illegal downloader behaviour. If you could convince a judge that you only downloaded the music, then immediately deleted it without ever using it/copying it, I believe you would get off rather lightly.
It's like placing a bomb in a railway station: You might only be placing the bomb as part of a piece of art. If you can show that, you'll get off lightly. More likely, you'll be labeled a terrorist.
In the same vein, if you downloaded for sampling only (looking to buy later), you could have done that legally on the radio or in a CD shop. There's probably even legal snippets for sampling online now-a-days. So that argument is plain silly as well.
I conclude that most people download for personal gain, to the detriment of the copyright holder.
That is not to say the MPAA and friends are angels. They are not, on the whole.
Exactly what I wanted to say. My most hated KHTML not-supported/bug is border-collapse in tables. That really sucks, as making nice, simple tables with CSS only in Konq is just not possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Too early to tell. Cancer is usually about 10years in development. We will see.
See above, plus the phone towers are very far away compared to the phone in your hand. The inverse square law again.
Because cell phones are new. New stuff is always blamed for all sorts of things. Plus the US system of civil suits are severely broken, so it sometimes pays to sue more or less randomly.
Because tin foil hats can't spell? It's probably something like Dinitroamino ethanolamine or similar. And google is not the best place to find chemical data (=such data tend to cost money).
You are probably right, but we can't conclude this quite yet. Ask again in 10 years.
Are you seriously suggesting that people give up their holy cows^H^H^H^Hcars instead of going after big corporations?
That may be, or not be. It's still guesswork. I say, do not base law on guesswork, make them on facts. If no facts can be produced, the effect is not strong enough to warrant the complications of law.
My heart tells me that patents would be good, if the patent period was shortened to match the rapid pace of todays technology. For software patents, I would say 3 years, no longer than 5.
But this is just gut feeling; I would rather have a study and exchange the guts with facts
PS: Yes, the islamic fundamentalism is a great irony, and a bigger shame, in the light of former glory. Hopefully, religions will some day again be able to cooperate again; or better yet, die the death they so richly deserver. Ah, a man might dream, but such is no likely to pass in my lifetime.
Difficult, but not impossible. Patents does not currently cover everything everywhere. Is there less/more/as much innovation in such areas? What happens when patents are introduced to a previously unregulated area? And so on.
If we don't know, and do not have a reasonable idea that patents effects our society in a positive way, we should not have the patents system --- that would be creating a large, administrative burden for everyone with no verifiable gain.
Has there ever been some study or likewise that support patents, in the sense that they show an increase in innovation in areas that are patent regulated?
Ehh... XEmacs is about as GUI oriented as Emacs. The differences, such as they are, are more subtle than that.
It's not a crime to bring over however much alcohol you like. You just have to pay the taxes. How do you think the CH_3CH_2OH made it into your state in the first place?
I'm assuming here that your local law (US?) is not totally insane
How about nuclear power plants in the stratosphere, supported by a helium floating device?
In C, this is because 0 != NULL. NULL = (void*) 0. This makes a difference in function calls, where calling myfoo(int a) with myfoo(NULL) is a compiler error/warning, but myfoo(0) is legal.
In C++, NULL = 0. Really. Here's the header from gcc (well, really the kernel):
This is because C++ has points to members, I believe (not sure, don't use void* pointers). Instead I use this struct, which IMHO should be included in STL (slightly shortened in the interest of brevity, and written from memory, so may not compile):
The first member ensures that my_null can be converted to any pointer other than pointer-to-member, and the last one takes care of those. This method makes the C case above work as it should, i.e. give an error.
As for clarity, it separates two concepts: The NULL pointer (a pointer pointing to nothing) and 0 (an integer).
As an aside, I actually prefer !p, since it say to me "If p not a valid pointer....". But I can handle both :)
The 80s computer screen were typically 320x200, 4bits or so. That is, the application has to control about 32kb, give or take. A modern screen is 1600x1200x32bit, or 7680kb. Or about 240 times or 2.4 orders of magnitudes. More processing power than you think are put into this sink, IMHO.
Does it run linux?
He did? Then I misunderstood him. I thought he was talking about ad-blocking in general.
Otherwise I agree. It is different because serving web pages is so darn cheap, while wires and routers are not.
Google seems to managed without pop-ups or pop-unders, and without animated ads. I never block static images or text-only ads. I always block popup and pop under (without noticing). Animated falls in between: I avoid sites with (too many of) those.
It is perfectly possible that when a SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 a both present/combined, some trick will break the combined algorithm. Indeed this is just as likely as either algorithm having a flaw.
That is the heart of the problem.
If we are talking brute-forcing, it would be simpler (=fewer bugs) to just double the length of one hashing function.
One way would be to issue a digital certificate to every citizen and company in a country. Not an unsurmountable project (though not trivial, either)
I get a "The certificate was not issued for this host" when I try to enter (via https --- http should be dead and buried for anything remotely sensitive, and that does include paypal).
That was with Konquoror. The link doesn't work in firefox for some reason.
Well, you wouldn't trust a site that doesn't present a valid certificate. The problem is that obtaining such is too expensive for many.
We need a reliable way for the a domain owner to get a certificate issued for that domain. This is mostly a bureaucratic problem, which could be solved, people willing.
Mainly it talks about how parts of the IT sector wants to block the contensted directive and how the proponents have been unable to get through due to effective lobbyism from the contensters.
No, that would using Coca Cola as a trade mark. But writing "Taste just like Coca Cola" on the side would be ok, since you are referring to the name. Or so I understand.
The (US) law is not relevant in what I call stealing. I use theft/stealing for a wide range of misappropriation. I believe this is a common usage, much more common than the law. E.g, Shakespeare refers to pirates as "Salt water thieves", though pirates robs rather than steals.
As for "not depriving the copyright holder", I don't buy that. Read my earlier comment. You deprieve him of the exclusive right to copy the thing, and devaluate the selling potential while he himself gains a copy of the copyright matrial. Thus, it is stealing. Calling it anything else is, IMHO, splitting hairs.
Copyright infringers are thieves. The argument about pirates are things aboard a ship is just silly. A word can have more than 1 meaning. A pirate might be a salt water robber, or a somebody who copies copyrighted material [with the intent to sell]
Murderers are not a priori thieves, for they gain nothing (material) from the act of murdering.
I don't know about if he should or not. What I see is stealing, even if it is from those evil RIAA. Now, you might argue that stealing is ok in some situations (I agree) and you might further argue that copying music is such a situation (I do not agree). The point remains: Filesharing of copyrighted works in the manner described n posts up is stealing in my book. I don't think I am alone in point of view.
From this FAQ:
Stealing is stealing, no matter who you steal from.
I know the publishers get the lions share. What has that to do with stealing? The artists could use another publisher, or publish by some other means. Nothing is stopping them. They could put up a web site and offers songs for download; they could get the CDs printed themselves, make a co-op (is that the word?) to do so etc. The fact that they don't is very interesting.
I don't believe we need illegal means to change this. On the other hand, the P2P-shares have caused everyone to pay in Europe, as many countries have imposed a tax on storage media to recompensate the publishers for lost income. That sucks.
Thieves cost everybody money and effort, since now we have to deal with copyright protections, CSS, locks&keys and so on. All due to fileshares and digital "pirates" So I have little love for that brethern.
And to answer you last question, nobody is forcing the artists (and don't tell me some of the richer artist don't have the economic power to do so). So it's still wrong to steal copyrighted material.
I believe taking something from a shop, taking it home and then bringing it back to the store before the next customer shows up is also stealing. I believe that the copyright holder might have sold you the right to copy that music, and this right he lost when you downloaded it. For me, it's that simple. I know not everybody agrees with me, and that's fine with me. But I reserve the right to call something thieving when I believe it is, and it is within a reasonable interpretation of the english word.
And your argument only holds if you only download and never listens to what you download. Somehow, I don't believe that is typical illegal downloader behaviour. If you could convince a judge that you only downloaded the music, then immediately deleted it without ever using it/copying it, I believe you would get off rather lightly.
It's like placing a bomb in a railway station: You might only be placing the bomb as part of a piece of art. If you can show that, you'll get off lightly. More likely, you'll be labeled a terrorist.
In the same vein, if you downloaded for sampling only (looking to buy later), you could have done that legally on the radio or in a CD shop. There's probably even legal snippets for sampling online now-a-days. So that argument is plain silly as well.
I conclude that most people download for personal gain, to the detriment of the copyright holder.
That is not to say the MPAA and friends are angels. They are not, on the whole.
Exactly what I wanted to say. My most hated KHTML not-supported/bug is border-collapse in tables. That really sucks, as making nice, simple tables with CSS only in Konq is just not possible.
Safari and Konqueror is darn near the same thing. The core (KHTML) is two branches of the same code.