Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.
This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.
In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.
This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.
I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.
You're a bit incorrect with your analogy. This is more like a flashlight than your glasses. With these you still need to power them so the power source needs to be within a certain distance. If you hold a flashlight a foot away from what you're looking at you can see it bright as day but if the light is 100 yards away it doesn't do much good.
Presumably the HP chip's power source is RF transmission, right? So why couldn't you convert your pringles-can receiver into a transceiver? I recall there is a physics law somewhere that states that RF pathways are always inherently capable of bidirectional flow.
...then we should see some statistical bumps in the health or lifespan of the average sewer worker. Or of the average sewer-going animal, for that matter.
Spamhaus doesn't block spam--they provide a database of IP addresses that mail server administrators can use at their own discretion to block suspected spam sources. So, if Spamhaus isn't blocking e360insight's mail servers (they aren't), then why should they have to "prove" that e360insight is a spammer? As I understand, Spamhaus essentially has a network of honeypot e-mail addresses. Anything hitting these addresses is, by definition, unsolicited, and therefore spam.
You are right and I agree. Death to spammers.
However. The fact remains that spamhaus wields quite a bit of power. They have accumulated that power by means of the zillion admins who have opted-in. They are now wielding that power, and in so doing they have invited and legitimized a measure of public skepticism and scrutiny.
Even though everything about spamhaus is optional and consensual, the judge may be looking at the power angle, rather than the consent angle. All concentrations of power are suspect, and many jurists believe that they have an inherent right to intervene in the use of any concentration of power.
Once again, I'm all for spamhaus. I'm a little-L libertarian myself, and spamhaus is an ideal solution in my book. But suppose that 360insight is actually innocent . . .
Liar. Israel is the largest employer of Palestinians in the middle east.
If some Israelis express a desire to ban all Palestinians from Israeli soil, it is probably because of the civilian-garbed suicide bombers. Remove the bombers from the picture, and Israelis will want their labor pool back.
Did you know that the reason why Palestinians hate the checkpoints is because they interfere with their going to and from their jobs in Israel?
Such is the price people seem willing to pay in return for lower taxation and greater spending power at the checkout.
Let us say I have the misfortune of catching a terrible and expensive disease, and it chews up all of my insurance and savings.
Now certainly I would want others to foot the bill for me. Be it through insurance, or medicare, or medicaid, or welfare, or whatever other form of transfer payment is available. I myself would want this very badly.
But... why should others want to do so or be required to do so? What if they have carefully laid up their own futures, and have no wish to receive any transfer payments at all? Why should my misfortune fall onto their shoulders?
And don't you dare say "but the insurance companies or the government can pay for it". Companies and governments are fictitious entities: only individuals exist, only individuals can earn or lose money.
Are you certain that society is a better place as a result of implementing medical transfer payments?
Is that why AMD is going to build a plant in Saratoga, NY?
No, it isn't. AMD is going to build a plant in Saratoga, NY, because AMD was given numerous tax exemptions to lure it in. This is standard practice everywhere, and is no indicator of how business-friendly a region is.
Meanwhile, the established businesses do not receive such exemptions, and so are dismayed and disadvantaged to the point of looking for an excuse to leave.
In time, of course, AMD will lose its exemptions, and find itself in the same boat.
"These mice will be the natural selection grounds for oxygen radical resistant bacterial strains, maybe even incoorperating them into their metabolic pathways to produce cheap ATP. Next you will find your printer clogged up with strange pulsating mounds of glee."
Bacteria clogging up the printer? That's easy to solve -- just print out something toxic, like a full-nude picture of Bea Arthur. That ought to sterilize the entire paper pathway.
One trivial mistake, and everyone else would just take the result on faith? You really have no idea how this "science" thing works, do you?
Do you understand the nature of knowledge, such that advanced concepts build upon earlier concepts which build upon basic concepts? What if some very basic assumption about our climate models is false?
For example, over a period of 100 years, a 0.05% error in something like cloud reflectivity could easily compound into the kind of calculated temperature rise presently being predicted.
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
Just because you can't see any clear motivation, doesn't mean their isn't one.
Their motivation may stem from any of the following:
the longstanding enmity between academia and industry
the longstanding anti-industrial bias from the Left, of which some or most of academia is a part
the free and valuable publicity that such claims are given
the bandwagon effect
global warming may be the koolaid that climatologists are required to drink in order to ascend the ivory tower
it's more fun to get excited about global warming than it is to quell that same excitement
there is a greater feeling of personal power in drafting research that effectively demands that we dismantle all current industry
and so on
Now I don't know how many of these motivations apply to how many climatologists... but I also know that I am not a climatologist (or even an academician) and so I cannot possibly imagine all of their pressures and motivations. And neither can you.
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
And we need 13 CVBGs and 24 B-2s to respond to, what exactly? Terrorism? No other nation-state is going to attack the United States. The nuclear deterrent seems to be pretty effective when dealing with them. And terrorism can be solved by a combination of better security, human intelligence, and *gasp* addressing the underlying issues that make us unpopular with "John Q. Public" in the Muslim World. Like our one-sided support of Israel and our past transgressions with supporting ruthless dictatorships.
None of those things can be addressed with more M-1 tanks, Nimitz class carriers or F-22s.
We could not have responded to UBL and Afghanistan without a conventional force that was large enough to do the job while still leaving enough unallocated forces to deal with at least one other interloper.
Are you seriously suggesting that we abandon our support of Israel, or that we give equivalent support to Israel's enemies?
America's superpower status has given the world an enormously long and productive period of near-peace. Do not assume that the present peace, or that the safety you presently enjoy while travelling abroad, exists independently of our large military. The only thing anybody respects is superior power.
I suppose you don't believe in the "housing bubble" either.
Not sure yet. I do know that the housing rush is due in part (or maybe entirely due to) the across-the-board drop in prices for consumer items. Thanks to cheap Chinese manufacturing ($35 microwave anyone?), Americans have a lot more room in their budgets to buy a house. But I guess we'll see.
"Mindless jobs" are an artifact of the "industrial devolution". No economy that depends on dumbing down the majority of the population is sustainable.
I always thought that exporting our manufacturing jobs was the method of "smarting up" the population. Seriously: why are any Americans still sitting at an assembly line, acting like robots?
If you check the numbers, I'm sure you'll notice that the negative trade balance with the country we've exported many of our "mindless jobs" to is now at a record level.
All trade imbalances are equalized by investment capital flowing back the other way. In this case, China is massively investing back in America -- because America is still a good investment. Our desirability as an investment is indicated by the low interest rates that we are required to pay on foreign investment capital. If the world thought that we were a high risk, they would charge us a high interest rate.
Seems that the Chinese people don't need much in the way of mindful services provided by Americans. I think this is indicative of a problem. Do you?
Ah, you're right. I found a patent (6754502) for exactly that.
The patent explains how the towers deal with the uncertainty introduced by the handset's internal processing delay: each phone self-reports its own delay to the tower. I should've known.:)
If you get out of your little tunnel and open your eyes, you'll find that the economy is not so great. Real wages have been going down since the 70's (following the start of the outsourcing trend), and many of our fellow americans have been financing the difference. In the last couple of years, this means Adjustable Rate Mortgages to afford payments on a house, 0% auto loans, growing credit card debts, growing trade deficits, growing federal budget deficits.
America has a problem with debt.
That's less than half of the story.
The other half of the story is the debt service ratio, which is the percentage of disposable personal income spent on interest on debts. The debt service ratio has risen only slightly since 1980.
This slight rise is to be expected, though, because real net household wealth is higher than ever and still rising. After all, the more money you have, the greater percentage of it you can afford to spend on interest payments.
Real net household wealth is rising because everyone is innovating, all over the world... and because we're exporting all the mindless jobs (read: assembly lines, manufacturing) to the countries whose technology levels have risen high enough to accept them. In time, those countries will re-export them downward, sort of like hand-me-down clothes you give to your little brother. In fact, the point of this slashdot article is that China is doing exactly that.
So. Either you are a clueless armchair FUDconomist, or you're a liar, or both.
The number of competing effects going on during the collapse of a star is just amazing. You have gravitational pull, thermal pressure, rotational 'pressure', electromagnetic forces in a regular star. Now you start to collapse the star and you have to add in the transition of millions of individual nuclei becoming in effect one large nucleous as they all mearge. (not to mention the energy output from this). In effect the strong force comes into play along with the standard EM and gravitational forces. It gets much more complicated than that, but it has been several years since those classes.
We've discussed the intriguing notion that the universe is a computer simulation. In fact there is some compelling evidence that this is so -- not least of which being the Law of Conservation of Information. A supernova, then, requires a massive amount of computation.
Perhaps the code looks like this:
neutronstar* supernova(supergiant* src)
{
//
// We used to calculate all the physics forces here,
// but it kept bogging the system down, we're talking
// hundreds of threads.
// So now we'll just emit a blast of photons that is
// bright enough to obscure the scene, and then just
// alloc a neutron star in its place.
//
src->emitPhotons(rand() * 25600000000000000000);
I find that not at all odd, given how mathematics have proven unreasonably effective in describing the universe we find ourselves to be a part of.
Yep yep. Mathematics makes possible the completely astounding feat of being able to build a bridge out of precise amounts of raw materials, knowing ahead of time exactly how much wind and weight it will ultimately be able to bear.
Of course, any engineer worth his salt will build his bridge out of Rearden Metal . . .:)
Because the arbitrary definitions which we assigned to the symbols 2, 3, 5, +, and = happen to represent real-world concepts that exhibit the behavior that 2 + 3 = 5, and not because there is any abstract universal rule that "2 + 3 = 5" and we simply need to find real-world behavior to prove it.
Quoted for truth. I want to elaborate (i.e. ramble) on it a bit . . .
Numbers are indeed a deductive system: they are true because they are defined to be true. They are true in all conceivable universes. This makes them useful but also hollow: they contain no empirical content, and hence are immune to all conceivable experimental results.
Nevertheless, they (and all other deductive symbols) can participate in inductive statements, such as "2 algae cells will combine with 3 fungi cells to produce 1 lichen".
Seems to me that the main problem here is that there's no meaningful penalty for ignoring prior art. One idea that seems easy but I've never seen pursued is for the law to be changed to treat a failure to cite prior art as perjury. Then, should a successful prior art case be prosecuted against a patent, the applicant would be subject to fines or even imprisonment. This simple change would rebalance the system and result in far fewer lame patents with obvious prior art.
Now that is frikkin' insightful.
It reminds me of an old saying: In software, there are no problems that cannot be solved with an additional layer of abstraction. Well, in politico-economics, apparently there are no problems that cannot be solved with an additional (dis)incentive.:)
The timing thing is for real, it's how the cell tower knows that you are outside it's designated area.
How can a tower differentiate between the radiowave propagation time (~nanoseconds) versus the processing delays incurred inside the handset (~milliseconds) ?
And why should the tower care? The handset is limited to 0.6W of transmit power, so it will self-limit its own maximum range.
The USPO examiner did his job and really made us work for it, narrowing the claims and causing us to better differentiate from prior patented software.
I've been through that too... it took six years to get it all approved. They are indeed very careful to check each patent against earlier patents.
What the USPTO doesn't do, is check each patent against prior art. In effect, a patent simply says "This method may already be in common use, but this is the first time anyone has thought to patent it."
To illustrate: US patent number 6,368,227 is a "method of swinging on a swing", in which the person pulls the chains alternately in order to swing side to side.
So, it's up to the courts to sort out the question of prior art. The common complaint here on slashdot (and in my own heart) is that the USPTO should check prior art... but now that I think about it, that seems inefficient. It's inefficient because most patents will never come to dispute, and hence are irrelevant. Why spend a gabillion dollars bringing in the necessary expertise, until you know that it actually matters (i.e. is actually challenged)?
Slashdot Mirror
This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.
In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.
This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.
I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.
...you certainly did shape my career, and therefore my entire life.
Presumably the HP chip's power source is RF transmission, right? So why couldn't you convert your pringles-can receiver into a transceiver? I recall there is a physics law somewhere that states that RF pathways are always inherently capable of bidirectional flow.
...then we should see some statistical bumps in the health or lifespan of the average sewer worker. Or of the average sewer-going animal, for that matter.
Have we?
You are right and I agree. Death to spammers.
However. The fact remains that spamhaus wields quite a bit of power. They have accumulated that power by means of the zillion admins who have opted-in. They are now wielding that power, and in so doing they have invited and legitimized a measure of public skepticism and scrutiny.
Even though everything about spamhaus is optional and consensual, the judge may be looking at the power angle, rather than the consent angle. All concentrations of power are suspect, and many jurists believe that they have an inherent right to intervene in the use of any concentration of power.
Once again, I'm all for spamhaus. I'm a little-L libertarian myself, and spamhaus is an ideal solution in my book. But suppose that 360insight is actually innocent . . .
Liar. Israel is the largest employer of Palestinians in the middle east.
If some Israelis express a desire to ban all Palestinians from Israeli soil, it is probably because of the civilian-garbed suicide bombers. Remove the bombers from the picture, and Israelis will want their labor pool back.
Did you know that the reason why Palestinians hate the checkpoints is because they interfere with their going to and from their jobs in Israel?
That's no moon.
Let us say I have the misfortune of catching a terrible and expensive disease, and it chews up all of my insurance and savings.
Now certainly I would want others to foot the bill for me. Be it through insurance, or medicare, or medicaid, or welfare, or whatever other form of transfer payment is available. I myself would want this very badly.
But... why should others want to do so or be required to do so? What if they have carefully laid up their own futures, and have no wish to receive any transfer payments at all? Why should my misfortune fall onto their shoulders?
And don't you dare say "but the insurance companies or the government can pay for it". Companies and governments are fictitious entities: only individuals exist, only individuals can earn or lose money.
Are you certain that society is a better place as a result of implementing medical transfer payments?
No, it isn't. AMD is going to build a plant in Saratoga, NY, because AMD was given numerous tax exemptions to lure it in. This is standard practice everywhere, and is no indicator of how business-friendly a region is.
Meanwhile, the established businesses do not receive such exemptions, and so are dismayed and disadvantaged to the point of looking for an excuse to leave.
In time, of course, AMD will lose its exemptions, and find itself in the same boat.
Bacteria clogging up the printer? That's easy to solve -- just print out something toxic, like a full-nude picture of Bea Arthur. That ought to sterilize the entire paper pathway.
Do you understand the nature of knowledge, such that advanced concepts build upon earlier concepts which build upon basic concepts? What if some very basic assumption about our climate models is false?
For example, over a period of 100 years, a 0.05% error in something like cloud reflectivity could easily compound into the kind of calculated temperature rise presently being predicted.
Yes they might be lying. I suspect it more likely that some or all of them are simply mistaken.
It only takes one trivial mistake somewhere in the core climate theory in order to mislead the whole world of climatologists.
The mistake might even have been planted intentionally.
Just because you can't see any clear motivation, doesn't mean their isn't one.
Their motivation may stem from any of the following:
Now I don't know how many of these motivations apply to how many climatologists... but I also know that I am not a climatologist (or even an academician) and so I cannot possibly imagine all of their pressures and motivations. And neither can you.
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
Careful -- if you utter the phrase "I think not" in the same sentence as Decartes' name, you will promptly vanish in a puff of logic.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
We could not have responded to UBL and Afghanistan without a conventional force that was large enough to do the job while still leaving enough unallocated forces to deal with at least one other interloper.
Are you seriously suggesting that we abandon our support of Israel, or that we give equivalent support to Israel's enemies?
America's superpower status has given the world an enormously long and productive period of near-peace. Do not assume that the present peace, or that the safety you presently enjoy while travelling abroad, exists independently of our large military. The only thing anybody respects is superior power.
Not sure yet. I do know that the housing rush is due in part (or maybe entirely due to) the across-the-board drop in prices for consumer items. Thanks to cheap Chinese manufacturing ($35 microwave anyone?), Americans have a lot more room in their budgets to buy a house. But I guess we'll see.
I always thought that exporting our manufacturing jobs was the method of "smarting up" the population. Seriously: why are any Americans still sitting at an assembly line, acting like robots?
All trade imbalances are equalized by investment capital flowing back the other way. In this case, China is massively investing back in America -- because America is still a good investment. Our desirability as an investment is indicated by the low interest rates that we are required to pay on foreign investment capital. If the world thought that we were a high risk, they would charge us a high interest rate.
No, they just can't afford our services. Yet.
Ah, you're right. I found a patent (6754502) for exactly that.
The patent explains how the towers deal with the uncertainty introduced by the handset's internal processing delay: each phone self-reports its own delay to the tower. I should've known. :)
That's less than half of the story.
The other half of the story is the debt service ratio, which is the percentage of disposable personal income spent on interest on debts. The debt service ratio has risen only slightly since 1980.
This slight rise is to be expected, though, because real net household wealth is higher than ever and still rising. After all, the more money you have, the greater percentage of it you can afford to spend on interest payments.
Real net household wealth is rising because everyone is innovating, all over the world... and because we're exporting all the mindless jobs (read: assembly lines, manufacturing) to the countries whose technology levels have risen high enough to accept them. In time, those countries will re-export them downward, sort of like hand-me-down clothes you give to your little brother. In fact, the point of this slashdot article is that China is doing exactly that.
So. Either you are a clueless armchair FUDconomist, or you're a liar, or both.
We've discussed the intriguing notion that the universe is a computer simulation. In fact there is some compelling evidence that this is so -- not least of which being the Law of Conservation of Information. A supernova, then, requires a massive amount of computation.
Perhaps the code looks like this:
neutronstar* supernova(supergiant* src)
//
// We used to calculate all the physics forces here,
// but it kept bogging the system down, we're talking
// hundreds of threads.
// So now we'll just emit a blast of photons that is
// bright enough to obscure the scene, and then just
// alloc a neutron star in its place.
//
{
src->emitPhotons(rand() * 25600000000000000000);
coordinates xyzt = src->location();
weight initialMass = src->mass();
delete src;
src = NULL;
neutronstar* ret = new neutronstar(xyzt, initialMass);
ret->ignite();
return ret;
}
Yep yep. Mathematics makes possible the completely astounding feat of being able to build a bridge out of precise amounts of raw materials, knowing ahead of time exactly how much wind and weight it will ultimately be able to bear.
Of course, any engineer worth his salt will build his bridge out of Rearden Metal . . . :)
Quoted for truth. I want to elaborate (i.e. ramble) on it a bit . . .
Numbers are indeed a deductive system: they are true because they are defined to be true. They are true in all conceivable universes. This makes them useful but also hollow: they contain no empirical content, and hence are immune to all conceivable experimental results.
Nevertheless, they (and all other deductive symbols) can participate in inductive statements, such as "2 algae cells will combine with 3 fungi cells to produce 1 lichen".
Now that is frikkin' insightful.
It reminds me of an old saying: In software, there are no problems that cannot be solved with an additional layer of abstraction. Well, in politico-economics, apparently there are no problems that cannot be solved with an additional (dis)incentive. :)
In Soviet Russia, fish use you to guard for toxins.
How can a tower differentiate between the radiowave propagation time (~nanoseconds) versus the processing delays incurred inside the handset (~milliseconds) ?
And why should the tower care? The handset is limited to 0.6W of transmit power, so it will self-limit its own maximum range.
I've been through that too... it took six years to get it all approved. They are indeed very careful to check each patent against earlier patents.
What the USPTO doesn't do, is check each patent against prior art. In effect, a patent simply says "This method may already be in common use, but this is the first time anyone has thought to patent it."
To illustrate: US patent number 6,368,227 is a "method of swinging on a swing", in which the person pulls the chains alternately in order to swing side to side.
So, it's up to the courts to sort out the question of prior art. The common complaint here on slashdot (and in my own heart) is that the USPTO should check prior art... but now that I think about it, that seems inefficient. It's inefficient because most patents will never come to dispute, and hence are irrelevant. Why spend a gabillion dollars bringing in the necessary expertise, until you know that it actually matters (i.e. is actually challenged)?