By the same logic, you shouldn't worry about having a secret zipper on the back of your pants. It's on your pants, there for your own use. Nobody has unzipped it yet, so it must be benign.
Don't worry, no one is going to pull down that secret zipper and screw you.
Forget the chisel, get an Estwing rock pick. These suckers can rain destruction upon almost any man made or natural object. Depending on how violent you are feeling, you can punch a dozen holes in something in seconds. Then flip it over and smash it flat.
Mine has been hammering rock, concrete, and metal for over 30 years and works as well as the day I got it. My great-grandkids will be beating the crap out of stuff with it long after I'm dead.
No, the prosecutor and judge are from separate branches of the government. Separation of powers means the "government" wasn't making a deal, the administrative branch was. By custom, judges seldom impose a sentence longer than the prosecutors recommends. Any deal would be to have the prosecutor recommend a particular sentence. The judge can accept or reject that recommendation.
Patents have only one power. To prevent others from using what you patented. You don't have to do it. You might not want to. You might not be able to. So why file for a patent on something you'll never use?
Strategy. If you figure out two good ways to make something, but one is slightly better than the other, you patent both. But you're not going to bother making something the less desirable way, you just don't want a competitor to either. Or maybe for moral reasons, you don't want anyone to do it (lobotomy ray gun, whatever).
Or maybe you can't do what you patented for practical reasons. Patent interference, market conditions, the law (i.e. bald eagle killing machine).
If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.
I checked your link, but it doesn't say how the census bureau defines the poverty line. Had to dig a bit further.
Turns out both of you are right/wrong.
The US Census Bureau uses a basket of goods to determine the poverty threshhold. It calculates how much money it takes to have food, water, shelter, and clothes. This is termed "strict poverty."
The European standard is to calculative the poverty threshold as a percentage of median income. This is termed "relative poverty."
Then it gets complicated. The US calculates strick poverty pop % by how many people are in poverty without including any government subsidy. The EU calculates it by including government subsidy. Obviously you can't directly compare those percentages. But in my limited research, it appears that the US does better than the EU with either calculation of strict poverty % of population. Better than France, England, Italy and Germany, not as good as the Scandinavian countries. US states aren't identical, so it would be interesting to compare EU countries to US states.
But not so fast. The EU does better when comparing relative poverty. Significantly better. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean EU's poor are better off. For example, China beats the pants off of the EU using that metric. I don't see much demand in the EU by the poor to be treated like the poor in China.
I'm trying to find income by country broken into deciles to be able to compare being poor in the US to being poor in the the EU. But given that cost of living is the same or lower in the US than most EU countries, but the median income is higher in the US than most EU countries, it's probably safe to say that there are fewer % "poor" in the US than the EU using EU thresholds.
In short, it sucks to be poor. Really sucks (I was raise in poverty under both definitions). But being poor in the US is different than being poor in Europe. It may actually be slightly better.
How we treat our poor is very different philosophically. Safety net vs. Equality.
I doubt it would be truly useful, but I'd like to see a 2 million core processor. Arrange in, let's see, a 1920 x 1080 grid. The 8008 used 3500 transistors per core, so even before memory, it'd be a 7 billion transistor chip.
More practical might be a 128 x 128 core processor, using a modified 386 or 68020 for cores. That could be less than 5 billion transistors. Each processor is simple and well known enough that hand optimized assembly begins to make sense again.
Run the little bastard at just 1 GHz and your might be able to get 16 trillion calculations per second.
Something that specialized could make a handy co-processor for graphics, video, scientific crunching.
Won't happen, but I've got time to kill speculating.
Not even close to first. I used an SLA-190 to make complicated molds for chocolates in 1994. And probably not the first. I would be shocked if someone didn't use an SLS system to directly make complex shapes out of food around the same time or before.
My biggest complaint with today's homebrew rapid prototyping is the poor resolution. Pitiful even by standards 20 years ago.
It's academic, but it's been a long time since we've had any nukes targeted at anything but the middle of the Pacific. Academic because it doesn't take long to type in new coordinates. Sort of like having a gun, but not pointing at anyone. Etiquette.
The only purpose a large arsenal serves now is as a bargaining chip in weapons reductions talks.
I'm finding that that for some jobs, the lawyers are being replaced by engineers. Computers can do fast searches, but can't interpret or explain technical material to the couple of remaining lawyers. I do consulting and pick up these jobs from time to time. I've been offered as much as $600/hr ($10k up front) just to explain a patent to counsel.
Yup. It's at the discretion of the prosecutor to decide how hard they want to push it, if at all. The law allows that. So the prosecution decided to nail those guys with a lesser charge and/or sentence. They must not have been worth crucifying. A dishonorable discharge isn't trivial and must have been felt to be sufficient punishment and deterrent.
Obviously they want to nuke Manning as punishment and deterrent. And they have the tools to do it.
I'm guessing you live in Argentina. You have good reason to complain. Argentina isn't poor or backwards (Argentina has a good reputation in the US, if a bit narrow. Please send more steaks and wine!). A good solid market for big companies.
I've seen this from the other side so might be able to shed some light. Problem is companies do want to sell in Argentina, but don't know how. Local laws, customs, economics, etc. And companies are composed of individuals trying to keep their job. Someone in the company has to champion opening a new market and stake their reputation on some powerpoint explaining the opportunity, then staking their career on being right. Safer to just be one of the sheep and not risk your career. So there is a strong tendency for companies to stick with the markets they do understand.
The next best option is to find a local partner who will take care of all local sales details for you. They take all the risk, the company goons have nothing to lose. But it just about doubles the cost of products.
Simply put, the claim that Manning exposed corruption can't save him. If he had only exposed corruption, he'd be golden. Whistle-blower laws would have protected him. Probably would have had his life turned upside down for a while, but come out the other side.
But he didn't just expose corruption. He also chose to release unrelated documents that he shouldn't have. He left himself wide open for prosecution doing that. The law doesn't look at two acts and balance them. You can be a saint of a person, helping the poor for decades, etc etc. Kick one of them in the nuts and you still go to jail for assault. The law doesn't go "Hey, you've been a good guy, we'll look the other way on this one."
Now he can hope that the judge(s) will take the sum of his deeds into account and have mercy, but that's unlikely. The judges can rationalize it as "You discounted the harmful side-effects of your actions. Therefore we will discount the helpful effects."
As for "aiding the enemy", it will be an easy argument for the prosecution to argue. There doesn't have to be any actual aid or enemy. They just have to show he had reason to believe it could aid the enemy. Not "believe", "reason to believe". His reason to believe? He would have been told releasing documents could aid the enemy. Doesn't matter if he accepted that reason or not, he was given that reason. He just had to be told divulging the documents could aid the enemy.
Even if not told, he was releasing secret documents which by definition are not released so as to not aid the enemy. What enemy? Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if the enemy was real or hypothetical.
Interesting. I've also hear that technically we don't own land, but can hold a deed to it. Could the same quirk apply to copyright? Copyright being the equivalent to a deed: a document showing rights to a property? Eh, probably not.
Then I guess we'd have to call it a "copyright registration fee." Under the theory Congress being free to define the terms of copyright blah blah blah...
Not at all random. Economists do the calculations every few years and come up with about 14 years for the appropriate length of copyright. However, it will be plenty tough to roll back copyright length given where it is today and how we got here. Corporations and individuals claim copyright as property and any shortening will be argued as a taking of that property.
Fine, let's use that argument against the big companies. Want to call it property? Let's tax it. First 14 years, the period economist say should be appropriate even for garage acts, are free. If you have some work that is generating enough profits, then it is worth paying the tax. Else it goes public domain.
Set a minimum (I arbitrarily pick $25k) to encourage release to PD. Still don't like that? Make it $100 for small entities (such as people) like a lot of government agencies do already. Software, books, music, movies, you can be sure that 99+% of it will be PD after 14 years. Up the ante, either by % or minimum, from time to time to encourage more PD.
Only a very few works will be worth keeping a copyright on, fewer over time. So what. You freed up the vast majority of works after protecting them for a limited time and made the rest pay dearly to hang on to a precious few. That's called compromise... it's what lawmakers do.
Slashdot Mirror
By the same logic, you shouldn't worry about having a secret zipper on the back of your pants. It's on your pants, there for your own use. Nobody has unzipped it yet, so it must be benign.
Don't worry, no one is going to pull down that secret zipper and screw you.
I'm frequently surprised to find I live in Kentucky.
Rumor is he's dead. Uh, which Kennedy are we talking about? Never mind. He's dead too.
Forget the chisel, get an Estwing rock pick. These suckers can rain destruction upon almost any man made or natural object. Depending on how violent you are feeling, you can punch a dozen holes in something in seconds. Then flip it over and smash it flat.
Mine has been hammering rock, concrete, and metal for over 30 years and works as well as the day I got it. My great-grandkids will be beating the crap out of stuff with it long after I'm dead.
http://www.amazon.com/Estwing-E3-22P-22-Ounce-Rock-Pick/dp/B0002OVCMO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303226325&sr=8-2
No, the prosecutor and judge are from separate branches of the government. Separation of powers means the "government" wasn't making a deal, the administrative branch was. By custom, judges seldom impose a sentence longer than the prosecutors recommends. Any deal would be to have the prosecutor recommend a particular sentence. The judge can accept or reject that recommendation.
What? You want an explanation?
Even older, with more functions:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Slide_rule
"A patent isn't a product."
Patents have only one power. To prevent others from using what you patented. You don't have to do it. You might not want to. You might not be able to. So why file for a patent on something you'll never use?
Strategy. If you figure out two good ways to make something, but one is slightly better than the other, you patent both. But you're not going to bother making something the less desirable way, you just don't want a competitor to either. Or maybe for moral reasons, you don't want anyone to do it (lobotomy ray gun, whatever).
Or maybe you can't do what you patented for practical reasons. Patent interference, market conditions, the law (i.e. bald eagle killing machine).
If and when Google actually implements the patent everyone is commenting on, then you can worry. Until then, a patent isn't a product. It's just an idea on a piece of paper.
No, that's not a patent. If you knew anything about patents, you'd know that.
for those of you who want to check which version you have and which is the latest:
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
I checked your link, but it doesn't say how the census bureau defines the poverty line. Had to dig a bit further.
Turns out both of you are right/wrong.
The US Census Bureau uses a basket of goods to determine the poverty threshhold. It calculates how much money it takes to have food, water, shelter, and clothes. This is termed "strict poverty."
The European standard is to calculative the poverty threshold as a percentage of median income. This is termed "relative poverty."
Then it gets complicated. The US calculates strick poverty pop % by how many people are in poverty without including any government subsidy. The EU calculates it by including government subsidy. Obviously you can't directly compare those percentages. But in my limited research, it appears that the US does better than the EU with either calculation of strict poverty % of population. Better than France, England, Italy and Germany, not as good as the Scandinavian countries. US states aren't identical, so it would be interesting to compare EU countries to US states.
But not so fast. The EU does better when comparing relative poverty. Significantly better. Unfortunately that doesn't necessarily mean EU's poor are better off. For example, China beats the pants off of the EU using that metric. I don't see much demand in the EU by the poor to be treated like the poor in China.
I'm trying to find income by country broken into deciles to be able to compare being poor in the US to being poor in the the EU. But given that cost of living is the same or lower in the US than most EU countries, but the median income is higher in the US than most EU countries, it's probably safe to say that there are fewer % "poor" in the US than the EU using EU thresholds.
In short, it sucks to be poor. Really sucks (I was raise in poverty under both definitions). But being poor in the US is different than being poor in Europe. It may actually be slightly better.
How we treat our poor is very different philosophically. Safety net vs. Equality.
The Avogadro piece would only be 24 notes. Or did I just explain the joke? Doh!
I doubt it would be truly useful, but I'd like to see a 2 million core processor. Arrange in, let's see, a 1920 x 1080 grid. The 8008 used 3500 transistors per core, so even before memory, it'd be a 7 billion transistor chip.
More practical might be a 128 x 128 core processor, using a modified 386 or 68020 for cores. That could be less than 5 billion transistors. Each processor is simple and well known enough that hand optimized assembly begins to make sense again.
Run the little bastard at just 1 GHz and your might be able to get 16 trillion calculations per second.
Something that specialized could make a handy co-processor for graphics, video, scientific crunching.
Won't happen, but I've got time to kill speculating.
Destination in 500 miles.
Not even close to first. I used an SLA-190 to make complicated molds for chocolates in 1994. And probably not the first. I would be shocked if someone didn't use an SLS system to directly make complex shapes out of food around the same time or before.
My biggest complaint with today's homebrew rapid prototyping is the poor resolution. Pitiful even by standards 20 years ago.
It's academic, but it's been a long time since we've had any nukes targeted at anything but the middle of the Pacific. Academic because it doesn't take long to type in new coordinates. Sort of like having a gun, but not pointing at anyone. Etiquette.
The only purpose a large arsenal serves now is as a bargaining chip in weapons reductions talks.
I'm finding that that for some jobs, the lawyers are being replaced by engineers. Computers can do fast searches, but can't interpret or explain technical material to the couple of remaining lawyers. I do consulting and pick up these jobs from time to time. I've been offered as much as $600/hr ($10k up front) just to explain a patent to counsel.
Yup. It's at the discretion of the prosecutor to decide how hard they want to push it, if at all. The law allows that. So the prosecution decided to nail those guys with a lesser charge and/or sentence. They must not have been worth crucifying. A dishonorable discharge isn't trivial and must have been felt to be sufficient punishment and deterrent.
Obviously they want to nuke Manning as punishment and deterrent. And they have the tools to do it.
I'm guessing you live in Argentina. You have good reason to complain. Argentina isn't poor or backwards (Argentina has a good reputation in the US, if a bit narrow. Please send more steaks and wine!). A good solid market for big companies.
I've seen this from the other side so might be able to shed some light. Problem is companies do want to sell in Argentina, but don't know how. Local laws, customs, economics, etc. And companies are composed of individuals trying to keep their job. Someone in the company has to champion opening a new market and stake their reputation on some powerpoint explaining the opportunity, then staking their career on being right. Safer to just be one of the sheep and not risk your career. So there is a strong tendency for companies to stick with the markets they do understand.
The next best option is to find a local partner who will take care of all local sales details for you. They take all the risk, the company goons have nothing to lose. But it just about doubles the cost of products.
It sucks, but that's the root of the problem.
Simply put, the claim that Manning exposed corruption can't save him. If he had only exposed corruption, he'd be golden. Whistle-blower laws would have protected him. Probably would have had his life turned upside down for a while, but come out the other side.
But he didn't just expose corruption. He also chose to release unrelated documents that he shouldn't have. He left himself wide open for prosecution doing that. The law doesn't look at two acts and balance them. You can be a saint of a person, helping the poor for decades, etc etc. Kick one of them in the nuts and you still go to jail for assault. The law doesn't go "Hey, you've been a good guy, we'll look the other way on this one."
Now he can hope that the judge(s) will take the sum of his deeds into account and have mercy, but that's unlikely. The judges can rationalize it as "You discounted the harmful side-effects of your actions. Therefore we will discount the helpful effects."
As for "aiding the enemy", it will be an easy argument for the prosecution to argue. There doesn't have to be any actual aid or enemy. They just have to show he had reason to believe it could aid the enemy. Not "believe", "reason to believe". His reason to believe? He would have been told releasing documents could aid the enemy. Doesn't matter if he accepted that reason or not, he was given that reason. He just had to be told divulging the documents could aid the enemy.
Even if not told, he was releasing secret documents which by definition are not released so as to not aid the enemy. What enemy? Doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if the enemy was real or hypothetical.
He's screwed.
It's nice, I may have considered buying one -- except, as far as I can see it is an Apple product. What is that about?
Thanks. I learned quite a bit there.
Interesting. I've also hear that technically we don't own land, but can hold a deed to it. Could the same quirk apply to copyright? Copyright being the equivalent to a deed: a document showing rights to a property? Eh, probably not.
Then I guess we'd have to call it a "copyright registration fee." Under the theory Congress being free to define the terms of copyright blah blah blah...
Not at all random. Economists do the calculations every few years and come up with about 14 years for the appropriate length of copyright. However, it will be plenty tough to roll back copyright length given where it is today and how we got here. Corporations and individuals claim copyright as property and any shortening will be argued as a taking of that property.
Fine, let's use that argument against the big companies. Want to call it property? Let's tax it. First 14 years, the period economist say should be appropriate even for garage acts, are free. If you have some work that is generating enough profits, then it is worth paying the tax. Else it goes public domain.
Set a minimum (I arbitrarily pick $25k) to encourage release to PD. Still don't like that? Make it $100 for small entities (such as people) like a lot of government agencies do already. Software, books, music, movies, you can be sure that 99+% of it will be PD after 14 years. Up the ante, either by % or minimum, from time to time to encourage more PD.
Only a very few works will be worth keeping a copyright on, fewer over time. So what. You freed up the vast majority of works after protecting them for a limited time and made the rest pay dearly to hang on to a precious few. That's called compromise ... it's what lawmakers do.
Have Christopher Walken or Grace Jones been seen in the area? They are trying to create a monopoly on ... on ... ? What does Arkansas produce again?