In a manner of speaking they would be held accountable, by the people, not the government. The people that legally buy guns from them would likely stop, because most gun owners would not support that type of company. Free trade and capitolism keep them from saying something like that.
(i) the people = the government
(ii) so someone is dead and the only way the immoral manufacturer is held accountable is its business declines? Doesn't really seem like accountability to me.
(iii) if "Free trade and capitolism [sic] keep them from saying that" then how come people still use bittorrent, now that they know that Bram has advocated piracy?
What Grokster did was immoral, but not illegal.
(i) not according to the highest court in the land -- the absolute arbiter of what is legal and what is illegal.
(ii) when the law isn't perfectly clear, shouldn't morality provide a useful guide? Frankly I would want that to work both ways: If someone's actions falls in the gray area and their actions are moral, I would want a court to find the action legal. If someone's actions falls in the gray area and their actions are immoral, I would want a court to find the action illegal.
(iii) I certainly have no sympathy for a company that, by your description, has acted immorally.
What Bram said was in jest, but then Lawyers go to school and learn how not to have a sense of humor.
I don't think its that cut and dry that he was joking. He claims he was joking... but then he went on to develop a program that is the primary conduit of digital piracy... seems fishy to me.
But what if Smith & Wesson published an article on its web site saying: "Our goal for manufacturing guns is to make it easier to kill your classmates at school"? And then someone goes and uses their new gun to kill their classmates at school.
Shouldn't Smith & Wesson be held accountable its actions?
Yes, the prosecutors office has to make their own determination, but Apple is, indeed, the one who can decide whether or not the ball starts rolling towards criminal prosecution.
The Hebrew word translated to "day" in Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient Hebrew word that COULD have been used to describe a long but finite period of time.
Nice try, but ancient Hebrew also had words for week, month and year.
Also, we know very little about ancient Hebrew except for what is found in the Bible. For all we know, they did have terms for longer periods of time, but they weren't used in the Bible so they were lost.
Most (all?) Apple hardware does the checksum in hardware (built into the NIC). Add to that the inefficiency of using Altivec in the kernel, especially for small data sets, and it did not make sense for Apple to develop an Altivec version of the TCP checksum code.
The reason the article mentions the checksum case is not because Apple is missing the boat, but because there was a nice research article written about writing optimized TCP checksum code for Altivec, providing a good set of example code for aspiring Altivec coders.
The system they use identifies potential noise, dirt, scratches, spots, etc. in each frame but requires a person to verify each one. The reason for this is that many visual artifacts that look like noise are actually supposed to be there: a flickering candle, the shimmer of light off a water droplet, etc. might have elements that only last one frame and would be mistaken for noise.
Doesn't everyone have a moral responsibility for everything they do?
I believe game developers (and anyone else for that matter) have a moral responsibility to not teach children (or anyone else) "bad" values. Having said that, I find it unlikely that any games I've seen, even violent ones, teach "bad" values. I think people are pretty good about separating fantasy from reality.
I could, however, imagine a game that, especially if targeted at young children, would at least confuse the understanding of right and wrong. I believe it would be immoral to release such a game.
On the other hand, I do not believe that game developers have a moral obligation to teach/promote "good" values, although its great if they do so. Parents, other relatives, teachers, civic leaders, etc. do have that obligation, though.
BTW, I believe that there are universal goods and universal bads. I also believe that there is plenty that falls in a gray area in between.
I think that Mac and Windows are both good enough now that the most important thing is which one you are used to. I use Mac at home and Windows at work. I am much faster at Office for Windows, because I use it all day and am used to the keyboard shortcuts in Windows. I can surf the internet faster [I almsot typed "more efficiently", but didn't think that made sense] at home because I am familiar with the Safari shortcuts and have a mouse with extra buttons that I configured for forward, backward and open in new window.
Neither machine crashes very often. Neither has required maintenance voodoo. Each has certain OS features that I prefere over the other. [I hate window-in-window style of Windows applications. I prefer Windows Taskbar to the Dock.] The work machine has some weird remote access settings that IT occassionally tweaks when they modify our network.
I don't use Linux. [I know, what am I doing on Slashdot?:) ]
One of my college roommates also produced a lot of methane. Based on his ability to consume large amounts of alcohol, I'm pretty sure he was inorganic.
Parent was a joke, but I would be interested in knowing more about these "agreements".
Are these "agreements" explicit contracts? Or is the government merely altering established practice or vaguely worded oral agreements?
Its OK for the government to alter established practice to provide better service. However, it there are explicit contracts that state the government will not disseminate this information directly, then I get worried about Vader-style "altering". Everyone (whether individual or corporation) should be able to expect the government to fulfill its part of a contract, or should be able to get restitution if the government does not (assuming, of course, that the individual or corporation has fulfilled its part of the contract).
The 95% number is not 100% because they have defined a hit as a song if its score (however they determine that) is within two standard deviations of the mean. 95% of a normal distribution is within two standard deviations of the mean.
Therefore, they have proven the accuracy of their analysis through a tautology:
We define a hit as any song whose score is within two standard deviations of the mean of all Billboard hits. Amazingly, almost all Billboard hits (coincidentally equal to two standard deviations worth) are also within that range.
According to the User's Guide, pressing the forward or reverse button quickly skips to the next or previous song. Holding down the button fast-forwards or rewinds within the song.
I would recommend that any slashdotters facing that situation in the future utilize the response that has been statistically shown to optimize marital bliss:
The engergy doesn't go away. When the paint absorbs the photons, they get converted to electricity, which is then used to power your computer, refrigerator, radio, etc. These items release the energy back into your house, primarily as heat. So net heating/cooling of your house is zero.
Of course, if you produce more energy than you use, you can sell it to the utility, which will transport it to someone else's house. In that case, their house is a little warmer than it would have been, and yours a little cooler.
These are all marginal effects, though, especially since this paint may absorb 30% of the infrared, but leaves plenty of visible and UV light to warm your house.
I think the WTC is a bad example. It wasn't a random target, the way a cafe is.
You go back to a cafe after its rebuilt because there's no reason to believe that cafe is any less safe than any other. The terrorists probably picked it randomly.
You don't go back to the WTC after its rebuilt because its still a symbol of American economic hegemony, so will remain on the terrorists' radar screens.
Slashdot Mirror
(i) the people = the government
(ii) so someone is dead and the only way the immoral manufacturer is held accountable is its business declines? Doesn't really seem like accountability to me.
(iii) if "Free trade and capitolism [sic] keep them from saying that" then how come people still use bittorrent, now that they know that Bram has advocated piracy?
What Grokster did was immoral, but not illegal.
(i) not according to the highest court in the land -- the absolute arbiter of what is legal and what is illegal.
(ii) when the law isn't perfectly clear, shouldn't morality provide a useful guide? Frankly I would want that to work both ways: If someone's actions falls in the gray area and their actions are moral, I would want a court to find the action legal. If someone's actions falls in the gray area and their actions are immoral, I would want a court to find the action illegal.
(iii) I certainly have no sympathy for a company that, by your description, has acted immorally.
What Bram said was in jest, but then Lawyers go to school and learn how not to have a sense of humor.
I don't think its that cut and dry that he was joking. He claims he was joking... but then he went on to develop a program that is the primary conduit of digital piracy... seems fishy to me.
But what if Smith & Wesson published an article on its web site saying: "Our goal for manufacturing guns is to make it easier to kill your classmates at school"? And then someone goes and uses their new gun to kill their classmates at school.
Shouldn't Smith & Wesson be held accountable its actions?
Yes, the prosecutors office has to make their own determination, but Apple is, indeed, the one who can decide whether or not the ball starts rolling towards criminal prosecution.
Its called "pressing charges". Don't you watch TV?
Nice try, but ancient Hebrew also had words for week, month and year.
Also, we know very little about ancient Hebrew except for what is found in the Bible. For all we know, they did have terms for longer periods of time, but they weren't used in the Bible so they were lost.
In Soviet Russia, information reads you!
Most (all?) Apple hardware does the checksum in hardware (built into the NIC). Add to that the inefficiency of using Altivec in the kernel, especially for small data sets, and it did not make sense for Apple to develop an Altivec version of the TCP checksum code.
The reason the article mentions the checksum case is not because Apple is missing the boat, but because there was a nice research article written about writing optimized TCP checksum code for Altivec, providing a good set of example code for aspiring Altivec coders.
The system they use identifies potential noise, dirt, scratches, spots, etc. in each frame but requires a person to verify each one. The reason for this is that many visual artifacts that look like noise are actually supposed to be there: a flickering candle, the shimmer of light off a water droplet, etc. might have elements that only last one frame and would be mistaken for noise.
I just thought of an additional way to think of this:
There is a difference between a game teaching bad values and a game containing/showing bad values.
Game developers have a moral obligation not to teach bad values. There is no moral obligation not to contain/show bad values.
The problem we face is that there is disagreement about the degree to which a game containing/showing bad values ends up teaching those values.
Doesn't everyone have a moral responsibility for everything they do?
I believe game developers (and anyone else for that matter) have a moral responsibility to not teach children (or anyone else) "bad" values. Having said that, I find it unlikely that any games I've seen, even violent ones, teach "bad" values. I think people are pretty good about separating fantasy from reality.
I could, however, imagine a game that, especially if targeted at young children, would at least confuse the understanding of right and wrong. I believe it would be immoral to release such a game.
On the other hand, I do not believe that game developers have a moral obligation to teach/promote "good" values, although its great if they do so. Parents, other relatives, teachers, civic leaders, etc. do have that obligation, though.
BTW, I believe that there are universal goods and universal bads. I also believe that there is plenty that falls in a gray area in between.
...overlay a two-dimensional bar code over the image?
Tell me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the summary imply that it was identifying the puzzle piece by the picture on it? Now that would be cool.
So much for using this to make a face-scanner, unless we tattoo bar codes on everyone's faces.
I guess this is an interesting academic exercise, but I don't see how they've really done anything new.
I think that Mac and Windows are both good enough now that the most important thing is which one you are used to. I use Mac at home and Windows at work. I am much faster at Office for Windows, because I use it all day and am used to the keyboard shortcuts in Windows. I can surf the internet faster [I almsot typed "more efficiently", but didn't think that made sense] at home because I am familiar with the Safari shortcuts and have a mouse with extra buttons that I configured for forward, backward and open in new window.
:) ]
Neither machine crashes very often. Neither has required maintenance voodoo. Each has certain OS features that I prefere over the other. [I hate window-in-window style of Windows applications. I prefer Windows Taskbar to the Dock.] The work machine has some weird remote access settings that IT occassionally tweaks when they modify our network.
I don't use Linux. [I know, what am I doing on Slashdot?
One of my college roommates also produced a lot of methane. Based on his ability to consume large amounts of alcohol, I'm pretty sure he was inorganic.
Nit-picking: Its 65 operating nuclear power plants with 104 reactors (some plants have more than one reactor).
Not necessarily. The corrective optics in Hubble (because the mirror was ground wrong) reduce the effective resolution.
Parent was a joke, but I would be interested in knowing more about these "agreements".
Are these "agreements" explicit contracts? Or is the government merely altering established practice or vaguely worded oral agreements?
Its OK for the government to alter established practice to provide better service. However, it there are explicit contracts that state the government will not disseminate this information directly, then I get worried about Vader-style "altering". Everyone (whether individual or corporation) should be able to expect the government to fulfill its part of a contract, or should be able to get restitution if the government does not (assuming, of course, that the individual or corporation has fulfilled its part of the contract).
The 95% number is not 100% because they have defined a hit as a song if its score (however they determine that) is within two standard deviations of the mean. 95% of a normal distribution is within two standard deviations of the mean.
Therefore, they have proven the accuracy of their analysis through a tautology:
We define a hit as any song whose score is within two standard deviations of the mean of all Billboard hits. Amazingly, almost all Billboard hits (coincidentally equal to two standard deviations worth) are also within that range.
Ah, that makes sense. Remember, we're all nerds here . . . but we're not all *NIX nerds. :)
Umm, I understand you beat me to the post, but I don't know what you mean by -v.
According to the User's Guide, pressing the forward or reverse button quickly skips to the next or previous song. Holding down the button fast-forwards or rewinds within the song.
Its not a faraday cage if its got one side open.
I would recommend that any slashdotters facing that situation in the future utilize the response that has been statistically shown to optimize marital bliss:
"No, honey, it does not."
The engergy doesn't go away. When the paint absorbs the photons, they get converted to electricity, which is then used to power your computer, refrigerator, radio, etc. These items release the energy back into your house, primarily as heat. So net heating/cooling of your house is zero.
Of course, if you produce more energy than you use, you can sell it to the utility, which will transport it to someone else's house. In that case, their house is a little warmer than it would have been, and yours a little cooler.
These are all marginal effects, though, especially since this paint may absorb 30% of the infrared, but leaves plenty of visible and UV light to warm your house.
I think the WTC is a bad example. It wasn't a random target, the way a cafe is.
You go back to a cafe after its rebuilt because there's no reason to believe that cafe is any less safe than any other. The terrorists probably picked it randomly.
You don't go back to the WTC after its rebuilt because its still a symbol of American economic hegemony, so will remain on the terrorists' radar screens.
I would assume that a production version would cover the spokes.
For a couple reasons:
1) Debris getting in the spokes could damage them or interfere with their flexibility.
2) Make the twheel more aerodynamic.
3) Visual similarity to existing tires.