I posted the relevant passage from the opinion below. Title is "Mischaracterization" by anonymous coward.
Anyone can sign up for PACER and opinions are free.
http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/
I thought the article was using wave versus particle as the measurement outcomes. If you force A to perform as a particle, B "will have performed" as a particle. If you force A to perform as a wave, B "will have performed" as a wave.
He's using several kilometers of fiber-optic cable to increase the delay to 50ms. This makes me wonder how slow you can make light travel without destroying its quantum properties. You don't want to have to wrap the planet with fiber-optic cables to send a messages a week into the past!
The article didn't seem to answer this question: if you have the plan, will your phone also automatically work with (i.e., have a built-in password for) residential T-Mobile-supplied routers? That is, if I go near a house or apartment building where someone else uses this service, and uses the router T-Mobile supplies, will my phone react the same way it would if I got near a Starbucks?
I'm not exactly sure why so many people get architecture confused with structural engineering.
Architects have a lot of freedom, and in fact do help the owner decide upon number of stories, square footage, elevators, etc., as well as help decide what it looks like.
Structural engineers consult during this phase (helping tell them what is within the realm of possibility and giving cost estimates) as well as design the structural members to fit within the building's shell. Structural engineers design foundations, slabs, columns, beams, and roof members.
This is the main theoretical method for option valuation.
The formula was derived by Fischer Black and Myron Scholes and published in 1973. They built on earlier research by Edward O. Thorp, Paul Samuelson, and Robert C. Merton. The fundamental insight of Black and Scholes is that the option is implicitly priced if the stock is traded.
Merton and Scholes received the 1997 Nobel Prize in Economics for this and related work; Black was ineligible, having died in 1995.
I think it's really cool what Google is doing here - get some actual values which can then be compared to the Black-Scholes values. Doesn't it seem possible that Google will be willing to auction off other firms' options as well, if this catches on?
A lot of people give Starr a very hard time about Clinton, but I believe it was the nature of the office, not his own preferences, that made him go too far.
The Independent Counsel was a position created in the wake of Watergate when the public did not believe the normal investigation and prosecution tools of the Executive branch were effective when high-level Executive branch officers were involved in (or suspected of) crime. The Independent Counsel, once appointed, and unlike a normal prosecutor, had only one target to investigate, an unlimited budget, and could not be fired by normal means.
When Ted Olson, a high-level Republican staffer, was accused of lying to Congress, an Independent Counsel was appointed to investigate. He challenged the Independent Counsel law as being an unconstitutional fragmentation of Executive power. He lost the case, but Justice Scalia, the boogeyman of liberals, dissented. His opinion contained an uncanny prediction of the Starr investigation of Clinton. He saw the dangers of the office of the Independent Counsel.
What if [the appointing judges] are politically partisan, as judges have been known to be, and select a prosecutor antagonistic to the administration, or even to the particular individual who has been selected for this special treatment? There is no remedy for that, not even a political one. Judges, after all, have life tenure, and appointing a surefire enthusiastic prosecutor could hardly be considered an impeachable offense. So if there is anything wrong with the selection, there is effectively no one to blame. The independent counsel thus selected proceeds to assemble a staff. As I observed earlier, in the nature of things this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual. Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as "picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him"? To be sure, the investigation must relate to the area of criminal offense specified by the life-tenured judges. But that has often been (and nothing prevents it from being) very broad - and should the independent counsel or his or her staff come up with something beyond that scope, nothing prevents him or her from asking the judges to expand his or her authority or, if that does not work, referring it to the Attorney General, whereupon the whole process would recommence and, if there was "reasonable basis to believe" that further investigation was warranted, that new offense would be referred to the Special Division, which would in all likelihood assign it to the same [487 U.S. 654, 731] independent counsel. It seems to me not conducive to fairness. But even if it were entirely evident that unfairness was in fact the result - the judges hostile to the administration, the independent counsel an old foe of the President, the staff refugees from the recently defeated administration - there would be no one accountable to the public to whom the blame could be assigned.
. . . .
The above described possibilities of irresponsible conduct must, as I say, be considered in judging the constitutional acceptability of this process. But they will rarely occur, and in the average case the threat to fairness is quite different. As described in the brief filed on behalf of three ex-Attorneys General from each of the last three administrations:
I've actually started using Avant (after using Firefox for over a year) because of rendering problems on some websites, most especially Google Maps. It fails to load chunks of the maps, and there's no way to fix it, even by zooming in and out and sliding the screen.
Yes, here is a good summary.
http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/131067.html
Basically, officers are immune from civil suit only if they are acting reasonably. (They will probably get off if they are wrong, but only negligent.) If they do something that's unreasonable (such as a warrantless arrest in a home when there are no exigent circumstances), they lose their immunity.
I'm not claiming the tort system is adequate compensation; it's got plenty of problems. But it/is/ a part of the protections the US systems gives to enforce the Constitution.
Your US law is not accurate.
First, evidence to be used against you because of a violation of your 4th or 5th Amendment privacy rights can be excluded from trial. This is a decision made by a judge pre-trial. It's not only done on appeal, as you suggest.
Second, you are able to sue the officers or department in civil court if the violation was particularly flagrant, and collect money damages.
This is so true. Have you ever seen a reporter working? Watch as they scribble two words per paragraph of someone's answer. They get big and little details wrong, and often don't understand what they're reporting.
Humor in games in the past 20 years
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Actually I thought that a lot of the earlier games were firmly tongue in cheek.
Infocom's Zork and Enchanter series had a lot of gags. Planetfall and Hitchhiker's Guide were, too.
Bard's Tale, as the aticle mentioned. But Keef the Thief and Escape from Hell were funnier. There were quite a few funny cut scenes in one of the Duke Nukem games--I remember Duke ripped off a defeated alien's head and, uh, took care of business down its throat...
I think gaming used to be geekier and have more self-depracating and sarcastic humor. Later, console systems opened gaming up to a younger and less geeky population, and games became more fast-paced and serious.
These days, it seems that Blizzard is keeping up the humor tradition more than most other publishers.
As a former Army Engineer officer, and former structural engineer, I'm a little skeptical of this article.
Engineer units and officers, who are already organic to Battalion (500ish troops) and above, are trained to do this sort of thing (bridge load surveys). For very complicated structures, I can see a need to contact a consultant "in garrison" somewhere who can do a more advanced structural model, but I'd think that would be quite the exception.
I think the article is misleading. The Army has had to evaluate the strength of existing bridges for years--since WWI or before--and has trained and integrated units and leaders with the capability to do so. Before 2004, tank commanders didn't just guess about whether a given friendly or enemy bridge would hold their vehicle.
I subscribed to the Legends service for about a year. Part of the higher cost was a similar online service--showing what zones you'd travelled to, where you were currently camped, and a character info page showing your stats and gear.
The website was frequently down. Even when it worked properly, The page was a disappointment. Item stats weren't given (part of the Vision, I guess), and the character info took at least 15 minutes to update after your logoff, if ever.
What's really mind-boggling is that the Magelo service (www.magelo.com), a free third party application, is much, MUCH better than SOE's own Legends page. You can either update your character manually, or capture your char and new items by running the autoupdater in the background. Within days or weeks of each new expansion, Magelo's character database is updated with new character attributes, etc.
If the EQII premium services are as bad as Legends, I can only think that SOE will get far worse press. Legends was restricted to less than 5% of the EQ community; EQII's premium services are targetted at the entire population. I really hope they've learned from their EQ1 v. Magelo experience.
- Stuff unrelated to driving, like the MP3 player.
- Stuff that can assist driving, like the falling-asleep camera mentioned earlier today, heads-up displays, etc
- "Drive by wire" like the F16. Electronic ignition timing; intelligent suspension, etc.
Do we always want physical failsafes on the deepest levels? Do we trust brake lines/brake fluid more than we trust data and power cables to a remote braking mechanism?
There's certainly a drive to integrate the levels. There are people in the world would would like cars to have speed governors, or breathalyzers. Or features the gently prevent tailgating at high speeds. If Microsoft gets in at the top level through the MP3 player, I can see it bullying its way down to the deeper levels as they integrate.
Most states, and the federal court system, allow very flexible service of process. Generally, you can serve process by mail with the notice and a waiver. If the organization refuses the waiver, then they become responsible for paying any costs to deliver in person.
In addition, it's pretty easy to serve an organization or business. You can serve almost any employee or representative, so long as he is 'so integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers.'
I guess this leads me to believe that this attempt at personal service was more of a stunt than a genuine attempt at service. (Not that there's anything wrong with trying to get publicity this way.)
The court seems to hold that the reverse engineering would have been OK if they had never accepted the EULA. So, you can hack if you have never played?
If this question interests you, you need to read Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid.
It's an awesome read, full of theory, exposition, and fables to explain the theory. The main idea behind the book is to explain Godel's proof that there are some things which are true but unproveable. There's a lot more to it, though, and it will stay with you for the rest of your life.
In a car, you have to use a lot of energy to accelerate the large car mass. If the flying device is light enough, I would think you could keep it hovering with relatively little power.
Also, I presume that air routes would be planned so there'd be very few actual intersections. So the aircar would not waste a bunch of energy braking and re-accelerating like commuting cars do.
The article states he wasn't testing them for mathematical skills--just their ability to remember four or five items, or remember how many lines were on a piece of paper. They couldn't do these things accurately in quantities greater than three.
It is surprising. I'd think that just visually people of any language could group items up to six at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Every AI ended up shutting down after being aware for some length of time, IIRC.
You want the opinion and order, not the transcript. And opinions are free, not 8c per page like most other documents from the docket.
I posted the relevant passage from the opinion below. Title is "Mischaracterization" by anonymous coward. Anyone can sign up for PACER and opinions are free. http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/
I thought the article was using wave versus particle as the measurement outcomes. If you force A to perform as a particle, B "will have performed" as a particle. If you force A to perform as a wave, B "will have performed" as a wave.
He's using several kilometers of fiber-optic cable to increase the delay to 50ms. This makes me wonder how slow you can make light travel without destroying its quantum properties. You don't want to have to wrap the planet with fiber-optic cables to send a messages a week into the past!
The article didn't seem to answer this question: if you have the plan, will your phone also automatically work with (i.e., have a built-in password for) residential T-Mobile-supplied routers? That is, if I go near a house or apartment building where someone else uses this service, and uses the router T-Mobile supplies, will my phone react the same way it would if I got near a Starbucks?
I'm not exactly sure why so many people get architecture confused with structural engineering. Architects have a lot of freedom, and in fact do help the owner decide upon number of stories, square footage, elevators, etc., as well as help decide what it looks like. Structural engineers consult during this phase (helping tell them what is within the realm of possibility and giving cost estimates) as well as design the structural members to fit within the building's shell. Structural engineers design foundations, slabs, columns, beams, and roof members.
This is the main theoretical method for option valuation.
I think it's really cool what Google is doing here - get some actual values which can then be compared to the Black-Scholes values. Doesn't it seem possible that Google will be willing to auction off other firms' options as well, if this catches on?
The Independent Counsel was a position created in the wake of Watergate when the public did not believe the normal investigation and prosecution tools of the Executive branch were effective when high-level Executive branch officers were involved in (or suspected of) crime. The Independent Counsel, once appointed, and unlike a normal prosecutor, had only one target to investigate, an unlimited budget, and could not be fired by normal means.
When Ted Olson, a high-level Republican staffer, was accused of lying to Congress, an Independent Counsel was appointed to investigate. He challenged the Independent Counsel law as being an unconstitutional fragmentation of Executive power. He lost the case, but Justice Scalia, the boogeyman of liberals, dissented. His opinion contained an uncanny prediction of the Starr investigation of Clinton. He saw the dangers of the office of the Independent Counsel.
What if [the appointing judges] are politically partisan, as judges have been known to be, and select a prosecutor antagonistic to the administration, or even to the particular individual who has been selected for this special treatment? There is no remedy for that, not even a political one. Judges, after all, have life tenure, and appointing a surefire enthusiastic prosecutor could hardly be considered an impeachable offense. So if there is anything wrong with the selection, there is effectively no one to blame. The independent counsel thus selected proceeds to assemble a staff. As I observed earlier, in the nature of things this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual. Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person? Does this not invite what Justice Jackson described as "picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him"? To be sure, the investigation must relate to the area of criminal offense specified by the life-tenured judges. But that has often been (and nothing prevents it from being) very broad - and should the independent counsel or his or her staff come up with something beyond that scope, nothing prevents him or her from asking the judges to expand his or her authority or, if that does not work, referring it to the Attorney General, whereupon the whole process would recommence and, if there was "reasonable basis to believe" that further investigation was warranted, that new offense would be referred to the Special Division, which would in all likelihood assign it to the same [487 U.S. 654, 731] independent counsel. It seems to me not conducive to fairness. But even if it were entirely evident that unfairness was in fact the result - the judges hostile to the administration, the independent counsel an old foe of the President, the staff refugees from the recently defeated administration - there would be no one accountable to the public to whom the blame could be assigned.
. . . .
The above described possibilities of irresponsible conduct must, as I say, be considered in judging the constitutional acceptability of this process. But they will rarely occur, and in the average case the threat to fairness is quite different. As described in the brief filed on behalf of three ex-Attorneys General from each of the last three administrations:
"The problem is less spectacul
I've actually started using Avant (after using Firefox for over a year) because of rendering problems on some websites, most especially Google Maps. It fails to load chunks of the maps, and there's no way to fix it, even by zooming in and out and sliding the screen.
Yes, here is a good summary. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/131067.html Basically, officers are immune from civil suit only if they are acting reasonably. (They will probably get off if they are wrong, but only negligent.) If they do something that's unreasonable (such as a warrantless arrest in a home when there are no exigent circumstances), they lose their immunity. I'm not claiming the tort system is adequate compensation; it's got plenty of problems. But it /is/ a part of the protections the US systems gives to enforce the Constitution.
Your US law is not accurate. First, evidence to be used against you because of a violation of your 4th or 5th Amendment privacy rights can be excluded from trial. This is a decision made by a judge pre-trial. It's not only done on appeal, as you suggest. Second, you are able to sue the officers or department in civil court if the violation was particularly flagrant, and collect money damages.
This is so true. Have you ever seen a reporter working? Watch as they scribble two words per paragraph of someone's answer. They get big and little details wrong, and often don't understand what they're reporting.
Actually I thought that a lot of the earlier games were firmly tongue in cheek.
Infocom's Zork and Enchanter series had a lot of gags. Planetfall and Hitchhiker's Guide were, too.
Bard's Tale, as the aticle mentioned. But Keef the Thief and Escape from Hell were funnier. There were quite a few funny cut scenes in one of the Duke Nukem games--I remember Duke ripped off a defeated alien's head and, uh, took care of business down its throat...
I think gaming used to be geekier and have more self-depracating and sarcastic humor. Later, console systems opened gaming up to a younger and less geeky population, and games became more fast-paced and serious.
These days, it seems that Blizzard is keeping up the humor tradition more than most other publishers.
As a former Army Engineer officer, and former structural engineer, I'm a little skeptical of this article.
Engineer units and officers, who are already organic to Battalion (500ish troops) and above, are trained to do this sort of thing (bridge load surveys). For very complicated structures, I can see a need to contact a consultant "in garrison" somewhere who can do a more advanced structural model, but I'd think that would be quite the exception.
I think the article is misleading. The Army has had to evaluate the strength of existing bridges for years--since WWI or before--and has trained and integrated units and leaders with the capability to do so. Before 2004, tank commanders didn't just guess about whether a given friendly or enemy bridge would hold their vehicle.
I subscribed to the Legends service for about a year. Part of the higher cost was a similar online service--showing what zones you'd travelled to, where you were currently camped, and a character info page showing your stats and gear.
The website was frequently down. Even when it worked properly, The page was a disappointment. Item stats weren't given (part of the Vision, I guess), and the character info took at least 15 minutes to update after your logoff, if ever.
What's really mind-boggling is that the Magelo service (www.magelo.com), a free third party application, is much, MUCH better than SOE's own Legends page. You can either update your character manually, or capture your char and new items by running the autoupdater in the background. Within days or weeks of each new expansion, Magelo's character database is updated with new character attributes, etc.
If the EQII premium services are as bad as Legends, I can only think that SOE will get far worse press. Legends was restricted to less than 5% of the EQ community; EQII's premium services are targetted at the entire population. I really hope they've learned from their EQ1 v. Magelo experience.
- Stuff unrelated to driving, like the MP3 player.
- Stuff that can assist driving, like the falling-asleep camera mentioned earlier today, heads-up displays, etc
- "Drive by wire" like the F16. Electronic ignition timing; intelligent suspension, etc.
Do we always want physical failsafes on the deepest levels? Do we trust brake lines/brake fluid more than we trust data and power cables to a remote braking mechanism?
There's certainly a drive to integrate the levels. There are people in the world would would like cars to have speed governors, or breathalyzers. Or features the gently prevent tailgating at high speeds. If Microsoft gets in at the top level through the MP3 player, I can see it bullying its way down to the deeper levels as they integrate.
Most states, and the federal court system, allow very flexible service of process. Generally, you can serve process by mail with the notice and a waiver. If the organization refuses the waiver, then they become responsible for paying any costs to deliver in person.
In addition, it's pretty easy to serve an organization or business. You can serve almost any employee or representative, so long as he is 'so integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers.'
I guess this leads me to believe that this attempt at personal service was more of a stunt than a genuine attempt at service. (Not that there's anything wrong with trying to get publicity this way.)
The court seems to hold that the reverse engineering would have been OK if they had never accepted the EULA. So, you can hack if you have never played?
If this question interests you, you need to read Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid.
It's an awesome read, full of theory, exposition, and fables to explain the theory. The main idea behind the book is to explain Godel's proof that there are some things which are true but unproveable. There's a lot more to it, though, and it will stay with you for the rest of your life.
In a car, you have to use a lot of energy to accelerate the large car mass. If the flying device is light enough, I would think you could keep it hovering with relatively little power.
Also, I presume that air routes would be planned so there'd be very few actual intersections. So the aircar would not waste a bunch of energy braking and re-accelerating like commuting cars do.
The article states he wasn't testing them for mathematical skills--just their ability to remember four or five items, or remember how many lines were on a piece of paper. They couldn't do these things accurately in quantities greater than three. It is surprising. I'd think that just visually people of any language could group items up to six at least.