The point being, Moore's Law has had 15 years to work and if someone was selling you a PC from 15 years ago for the same price as it cost 15 years ago, you'd be a bit confused.
"It's 150 Mhz with a WHOLE GIGABYTE of RAM! $1300, with included copy of Windows 98!"
Per wikipedia, it sounds like Anglo-Norman didn't supplant English.
"Although the English language survived and eventually eclipsed Anglo-Norman, the latter had been sufficiently widespread as to permanently affect English lexically. This is why English has lost or, more often, kept as parallel terms many of its original Germanic words which can still be found in German and Dutch. Grammatically, Anglo-Norman had little lasting impact on English, although it is still evident in official and legal terms where the noun and adjective are reversed: attorney general, heir apparent, court martial, body politic, and so on.[2]"
In other words, modern English isn't a descendant of Anglo-Norman.
I'm not saying that oligopolies set prices based on supply and demand, or that oligopolies don't set prices higher than in a market with perfect competition. But that's not the definition of a free market.
A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts.
As I understood Microeconomics 101, an oligopoly usually sets prices lower than a monopoly, but higher than a market with monopolistic competition or perfect competition. An oligopoly is not effectively a monopoly, and behaves quite differently. I think you're confusing a "free market" with a monopolistically competitive or perfectly competitive one. FYI, trains are a "natural monopoly", I think, not an oligopoly, and for that matter the government owns AmTrak. So yes, not a free market at all. Again- I'm not saying oligopolies are good for the consumer, but they can quite easily exist in a free market- so can monopolies. That's why most of the world's more sane governments have laws preventing certain types of anticompetitive behavior and restricting the free market.
Oligopolies can form in free markets. A free market doesn't mean a competitive one, it just means the government doesn't interfere. Governments can interfere to promote oligopoly, or to dissuade it.
I remember the media saying that other pandemic flus had peaked twice, once in the fall and once later. So if that had happened, it could have helped.
Anyway, I don't think we physically have the ability to manufacture flu vaccines much faster than we did. It's grown in eggs, sloowwly. If anything it was a good wake-up call that we can't expect to be protected by a vaccine in the event of a really deadly epidemic.
Reading it narrowly, Congress has the power to give content producers the exclusive right to use their own works.
My question is, since the extensions aren't in the Constitution, under what clause of the Constitution does Congress get to enforce copyright beyond the death of the author?
A) We have laws against murder for that. Anyway, I'm not so sure that corporations would want to do this: once it's in the public domain, anybody would be able to use it. A corporation with a monopoly is bound to make more money off what it's selling than if corporations B and C are also selling it, so it'd be in its best interests to buy the rights.
B) Possible, but I don't see it being a huge incentive. This is hard to quantify- if it's a small enough effect, then extending copyrights beyond death is a net loss to society.
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
So, Authors can be given the exclusive right to sell, perform, use, whatever, things they've made or discovered. Cool. Except that right extends beyond the author's death- either to his/her estate, or whatever corporation had been given it.
What is the Constitutional rationale for rights extending after death? I can't imagine it promoting useful art.
Yes, FTL communication leads to causality violation. The "tachyon pistols" is a thought experiment that explains it: http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html You can argue this, I guess, but it falls out of special relativity. If these experiments already done actually do propagate a signal faster than light then engineering a paradox would not be that hard, and that would be huge news.
"By carefully adjusting the frequency of the voltage and the phase displacement the researchers say they can make the wave travel at greater than the speed of light. However no physical quantity of charge travels faster than light speed." The experiment in the article is fundamentally the same as sweeping a laser across the moon. As I read it, they're basically shoving the EM field enough that one part wiggles, then another part wiggles, and if you calculate the "speed" as if the wiggles were a wave moving from one place to another then you get a number faster than light. However, the wiggles aren't actually causing one another and don't transmit information in the direction of propagation.
One of the funny things about special relativity is that subjective time slows down the faster something moves. An atomic clock in orbit ticks slower than one on the ground. When you hit the speed of light (you can't, if you've got mass, but say you're a photon) then time stops entirely. Photons do not experience time.
Actually, all photons move at the speed of light. The apparent speed of light can slow down, by putting a bunch of atoms in the photon's way. The photon is absorbed and another is emitted, and that takes time. It's possible to take that emission and slow it down almost arbitrarily, "freezing" light.
I'd notice the HUGE HONKING MASS OF OBFUSCATED JAVASCRIPT. Usually something like this stands out:
var _0xffba=["\x48\x65\x6C\x6C\x6F\x20\x57\x6F\x72\x6C\x64\x21","\x0A","\x4F\x4B"];var a=_0xffba[0];function MsgBox(_0x6517x3){alert(_0x6517x3+_0xffba[1]+a);};MsgBox(_0xffba[2]);
Not hard to tell something phishy is going on.
Unless you mean javascript that does something nasty but looks perfectly innocent?
Virgin offers a monthly unlimited plan for $10 (on top of a monthly minute plan). $5 for 1000 texts which seems eminently reasonable. Sure, you have to pay for the phone outright, but you OWN the phone outright, too. And can switch from prepaid to monthly when the month is up. Or vice versa. Or just buy unlimited texts and pay $.10 a minute for calls if you mostly text. No shenanigans yet, anyway. You're limited to dumbphones and a couple of okay qwerty phones for selection though.
can do this too. Haxe is a pretty neat language, it can compile to swf, Windows exe and iPhone. Plus you can run the compiled iphone apps in the simulator. Haxe is also significantly better than Actionscript 3.0 even if you just use it to write for the flash player- it can access the fast memory functions you can get with Android, and supports inline functions.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll need a big IR spotlight, though. This wouldn't even need that.
The point being, Moore's Law has had 15 years to work and if someone was selling you a PC from 15 years ago for the same price as it cost 15 years ago, you'd be a bit confused.
"It's 150 Mhz with a WHOLE GIGABYTE of RAM! $1300, with included copy of Windows 98!"
Per wikipedia, it sounds like Anglo-Norman didn't supplant English.
"Although the English language survived and eventually eclipsed Anglo-Norman, the latter had been sufficiently widespread as to permanently affect English lexically. This is why English has lost or, more often, kept as parallel terms many of its original Germanic words which can still be found in German and Dutch. Grammatically, Anglo-Norman had little lasting impact on English, although it is still evident in official and legal terms where the noun and adjective are reversed: attorney general, heir apparent, court martial, body politic, and so on.[2]"
In other words, modern English isn't a descendant of Anglo-Norman.
I'm not saying that oligopolies set prices based on supply and demand, or that oligopolies don't set prices higher than in a market with perfect competition. But that's not the definition of a free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
As I understood Microeconomics 101, an oligopoly usually sets prices lower than a monopoly, but higher than a market with monopolistic competition or perfect competition. An oligopoly is not effectively a monopoly, and behaves quite differently. I think you're confusing a "free market" with a monopolistically competitive or perfectly competitive one.
FYI, trains are a "natural monopoly", I think, not an oligopoly, and for that matter the government owns AmTrak. So yes, not a free market at all.
Again- I'm not saying oligopolies are good for the consumer, but they can quite easily exist in a free market- so can monopolies. That's why most of the world's more sane governments have laws preventing certain types of anticompetitive behavior and restricting the free market.
Oligopolies can form in free markets. A free market doesn't mean a competitive one, it just means the government doesn't interfere. Governments can interfere to promote oligopoly, or to dissuade it.
Wait, so the Jailbreakme pdf exploit was left there intentionally? Allowing anyone on the intarwebs to execute arbitrary code on my device?
I don't see any modulation going on- every update breaks the last jailbreak, within a couple of months a new jailbreak is out, rinse, repeat.
I have a soft spot for Logo, it was my first programming language. It's a great learning language, it caught my imagination pretty much immediately.
I remember the media saying that other pandemic flus had peaked twice, once in the fall and once later. So if that had happened, it could have helped.
Anyway, I don't think we physically have the ability to manufacture flu vaccines much faster than we did. It's grown in eggs, sloowwly. If anything it was a good wake-up call that we can't expect to be protected by a vaccine in the event of a really deadly epidemic.
[citation needed] on the first one, there...
They ramped up vaccine production as fast as they possibly could, IN CASE by the time it was available, the virus would be still going gangbusters.
Luckily it wasn't, but we just don't know enough about flu to have known ahead of time, let alone guessed.
Too late.
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1c4qr7k5y8t&scene=38572790&lvl=2&sty=b
Bing maps has had aerial imagery for forever. The area around my house is higher res than this link, actually (down to a swingset).
Reading it narrowly, Congress has the power to give content producers the exclusive right to use their own works.
My question is, since the extensions aren't in the Constitution, under what clause of the Constitution does Congress get to enforce copyright beyond the death of the author?
A) We have laws against murder for that. Anyway, I'm not so sure that corporations would want to do this: once it's in the public domain, anybody would be able to use it. A corporation with a monopoly is bound to make more money off what it's selling than if corporations B and C are also selling it, so it'd be in its best interests to buy the rights.
B) Possible, but I don't see it being a huge incentive. This is hard to quantify- if it's a small enough effect, then extending copyrights beyond death is a net loss to society.
Say I've got money from copyright royalties.
I bankroll my kids' educations.
They work hard at school, do well, go on to earn money in the real world. Maybe one of them makes money by producing works under copyright.
By the time THEY have kids, they've got enough money to get them through college. Maybe they inherit some of my money when I'm dead.
Rinse, repeat.
No need for inherited copyright.
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
So, Authors can be given the exclusive right to sell, perform, use, whatever, things they've made or discovered. Cool. Except that right extends beyond the author's death- either to his/her estate, or whatever corporation had been given it.
What is the Constitutional rationale for rights extending after death? I can't imagine it promoting useful art.
It took me 30 seconds to work out what you just did there, but I'm posting this FTL, so you will not have needed to have posted at all now.
And if you could, then you could violate causality without breaking a sweat:
http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html
Not sure I want to live in a universe where we've invented FTL communication, it would get really, really confusing.
IANAPhysist either, but I am pretty good at math.
Yes, FTL communication leads to causality violation. The "tachyon pistols" is a thought experiment that explains it:
http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html
You can argue this, I guess, but it falls out of special relativity. If these experiments already done actually do propagate a signal faster than light then engineering a paradox would not be that hard, and that would be huge news.
"By carefully adjusting the frequency of the voltage and the phase displacement the researchers say they can make the wave travel at greater than the speed of light. However no physical quantity of charge travels faster than light speed."
The experiment in the article is fundamentally the same as sweeping a laser across the moon. As I read it, they're basically shoving the EM field enough that one part wiggles, then another part wiggles, and if you calculate the "speed" as if the wiggles were a wave moving from one place to another then you get a number faster than light. However, the wiggles aren't actually causing one another and don't transmit information in the direction of propagation.
One of the funny things about special relativity is that subjective time slows down the faster something moves. An atomic clock in orbit ticks slower than one on the ground. When you hit the speed of light (you can't, if you've got mass, but say you're a photon) then time stops entirely. Photons do not experience time.
Actually, all photons move at the speed of light. The apparent speed of light can slow down, by putting a bunch of atoms in the photon's way. The photon is absorbed and another is emitted, and that takes time. It's possible to take that emission and slow it down almost arbitrarily, "freezing" light.
Er, when did beauty come into it? If it had been an ugly person would he have been less of a "sick fuck"- even marginally?
I'd notice the HUGE HONKING MASS OF OBFUSCATED JAVASCRIPT. Usually something like this stands out:
var _0xffba=["\x48\x65\x6C\x6C\x6F\x20\x57\x6F\x72\x6C\x64\x21","\x0A","\x4F\x4B"];var a=_0xffba[0];function MsgBox(_0x6517x3){alert(_0x6517x3+_0xffba[1]+a);} ;MsgBox(_0xffba[2]);
Not hard to tell something phishy is going on.
Unless you mean javascript that does something nasty but looks perfectly innocent?
"...you are presumed to be innocent."
In the eyes of the law, sure. Not in the eyes of other people, not if he ended up basically saying "Yeah, I did it." in print somewhere.
Virgin offers a monthly unlimited plan for $10 (on top of a monthly minute plan). $5 for 1000 texts which seems eminently reasonable. Sure, you have to pay for the phone outright, but you OWN the phone outright, too. And can switch from prepaid to monthly when the month is up. Or vice versa. Or just buy unlimited texts and pay $.10 a minute for calls if you mostly text. No shenanigans yet, anyway. You're limited to dumbphones and a couple of okay qwerty phones for selection though.
Costs a lot for time to run scans, though. Not sure how much a real autopsy costs, but a virtual one is probably more expensive.
And if they DID back Tor, would you trust it?
can do this too. Haxe is a pretty neat language, it can compile to swf, Windows exe and iPhone. Plus you can run the compiled iphone apps in the simulator. Haxe is also significantly better than Actionscript 3.0 even if you just use it to write for the flash player- it can access the fast memory functions you can get with Android, and supports inline functions.