Actually, Saint Nic was originally from Ephesus, where it's very hot usually. He obviously hasn't adapted to the climate... then again, maybe he's the person behind all this climate change.
No, it's not 'only mentioned to say that it's surrounded by controversy'. He is mentioning it because it was what Einstein was most famous for.
Also, he only mentions one philosopher who bagged it, and said others acclaimed it.
'the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly'
Einstein and Bergson actually became great friends and Einstein said he respected him. A lot of physicists were highly critical of Einstein's General Theory of relativity at the time.
Arrhenius spent as much time on the Brownian movement as he did on relativity. It is hardly 'at length and in detail'.
Of course, he spoke longer on the Photoelectric effect because that was considered the main thing he was getting the prize for.'
A third group of studies, for which in particular Einstein has received the Nobel Prize, falls within the domain of the quantum theory...
I would go on to say that this was singled out because it was considered 'a law' where as Relativity and his Kinetic theory were both theories. It didn't get as big a kudos at that stage because the Nobel committee were actually having an in-fight over the nomination. General Relativity at that stage was considered "pie in the sky", with no evidence to even suggest it was correct, where as Special Relativity was considered ground breaking by most physicists (but not all). The wording of the prize was considered a compromise where the committee didn't give Einstein a prize for what was considered 'pie in the sky' speculation (General Relativity), but still allowed them to give a prize to a scientist they felt deserved it.
Arrhenius was the one who allowed Einstein to give his Nobel Prize acceptance lecture on Relativity.
Actually, Relativity was mentioned as part of the award. In fact, in the presentation speech for the award it was mentioned first, followed by a kinetic theory relating to brownian movement, and finally the photo-electric effect explained using quantum physics.
So, though the award is listed as it being given to him "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech makes it perfectly well known that the 'Theoretical Physics' part is relativity and his kinetic theory for Brownian Movement.
'Einstein never was acknowledged for Relativity, for example. (He basically won it for the photoelectric effect work he did.)'
'If you check the award you'll see he received it for 'The Photoelectric Effect and other contributions to physics' I think relativity would come under the 'other contributions'. It may not have been a direct pat on the back for his Relativity work but it still covered it indirectly.
You put it somewhere (with books and toys in hand) and you can safely come back a couple of hours later. It will be there and you will not hear a squeak in the meantime.
Hmmmm, you have just repeat my mothers description of myself as a child. Of course, now that I'm an adult you can substitute toys for computer.
He could get sued in this case if the libel was considered 'Criminal Defamation' which is different to civil libel. But, you are correct in this case because a 'Criminal Defamation' would have required a very long stretch of the imagination. I take my hat off to you for correcting me.:-)
I'm pretty sure I've related this story on here before, but here goes again.
I used to work for West Australian Police (as a civilian) and one of the things I used to do was look after juvenile delinquents. I had a high school kid with me one day who tried telling me that maths was crap and he didn't need to learn it etc.
I asked him, 'If you were offered a job for $400 a week or one that paid $50 an hour for 40 hours work a week, which would you take?'
He insisted the $400 a week job was worth more than the $50 an hour x 40 hours job. I had to explain to him that the $50 an hour x 40 hours a week was $2000 a week. He still insisted for a while that the $400 a week job was more. It was hell trying to get him to think it through.
But, the main point is, how relevant is the maths we are teaching now a days to what they will use. Many will need at least basic skills and they will need those skills re-inforced as they go through school. If an average kid in High School can't tell the difference in pay between a $400 a week job and a $2000 a week job, then society has failed. Good skills in the areas that they will use in every day situations (like not getting ripped off for change or bank interest etc) is important. Learning how to calculate the area under a curve using calculus, less so for the average student.
A similar thing happened to Lori Drew with the Megan Meier suicide. They charged her under laws meant to stop hacking (unauthorized access - she breached the ToS of myspace), and it was later overturned when it was realised just how ridiculous it was.
Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
In this case the law wasn't twisted. In the UK the Harassment laws cover whether this would have been done in person or over the internet. The Public Nuisance laws that would have covered it prior to the internet have been in existence for hundreds of years. In about 1997 they drafted some new laws to take into account that harassment done on-line would be treated the same as over the phone or in person etc because others were getting around conviction by claiming that because the delivery method (the internet) wasn't specifically mentioned in the Public Nuisance laws that they were therefore not violating the law.
The law used to convict this guy is in deed the correct law to use and is in no way twisting any other laws in order to make a conviction.
I love how "computer crimes" are punished on an entirely different scale to regular crimes.
Not, quite. If the guy said the same things in person he would have been convicted under Harassment laws. Public Nuisance (which in the UK is both a crime and a tort) and also Anti-Social behaviour. He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
His sentence under the law would have been similar. Let me explain. One thing to remember is the main difference here is he committed this offence several times on several different sites. In real life he probably would have been convicted after just doing it once. That would have been less time in jail for him, but only because it would have been a first offence and he wouldn't have done it multiple times. Because he has done the crime multiple times his sentence is longer, if he had done the offence in person and got away with it until he'd done the same amount as what he's done on the internet, he might even have got a longer sentence, but most likely about the same.
You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
You're not comparing apples with oranges. What he has done is covered under Harassment laws. If he'd turned up at the homes of families and friends,or funerals or anywhere else and said these things he would still have got prosecuted. Cases are handled on a case by case basis. You can point to a case where someone ran someone down and got a lighter sentence, but there are also cases where people have run someone down and got longer sentences. Also, you break a bottle over someones head and they get a two year suspended sentence, you break another bottle over someones head you then have those two years from the suspended sentence to serve PLUS whatever else they throw on top for the second crime. This guy has committed the crime multiple times already. It's like catching someone who has repeatedly hit people over the head with bottles till they finally got caught. Someone like that would not get a suspended sentence.
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Whether done on a computer or in person this crime would have gone to trial and a similar sentence handed down. The only difference I see here is that you think that because it was done on a computer that it shouldn't have gone to trial. The law used in this case was the On-line Harassment laws and it was introduced to stop a loophole of people claiming that because the old harassment laws never stipulated using technology that they could get off. In other words the "old people" who introduced the laws didn't see any difference between someone phoning you and harassing you and someone using the internet to do the exact same thing, the only difference they saw was the delivery method.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
Apples and oranges again. He was convicted for harassment... and if he did it in
I don't understand it. It seems much worse to me to go to someones funeral or wake and say nasty things about them and yet that's fine.
No, this isn't fine. If the guy turned up at the wake or funeral and said the same things he would have been convicted under Harassment laws very easily. Public Nuisance (which in the UK is both a crime and a tort) and also Anti-Social behaviour. He probably would have got a similar sentence under the law for doing this in person. He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be. Things like this make me worried for the future.
It is illegal, and it should be. I'm worried by the amount of people who don't understand 'Freedom of Speech' laws. They give people the 'Freedom' to express views, no matter how right or wrong they are, they do NOT give people the freedom to say whatever they like about whomever they like whenever they like. That's why libel, slander, and pubic nuisance laws etc have been around for hundreds of years. (Yes, these laws existed before you were born). If they didn't exist I'd be very worried for the future.
Gees, as I've commented on other sites over the last few days concerning this.
1. Who was the old lady talking to? Well, plenty of people off screen for her to be talking to. She was probably blabbering to the old man in front of her even.
2. What does she have in her hand? Well, I can't see anything in her hand. The darkness might just be shadow. She might have had a tooth ache, she might have been holding her hand like that to hear the gentleman in front of her talking to her. There are so many different reasons why people hold their hand to their ear other than talking on a mobile phone.
3. She stops, turns and looks in shock at the camera. Well, someone off screen, possibly the cameraman, might have said something to her to cause her to stop and look his way. It's not exactly easy to see if she did look in shock because most of her head is in the shadow of her hat etc.
If you came from the future why would you walk around using a communications device openly anyway? That's the sort of thing to get you locked up in an asylum for 'hearing peoples voices coming out of a little box.'
Most plausible explanation I can think of is a certain film maker is trying to raise their profile by making a story out of nothing. He really should become a journalist.
"Foster's Lager does not enjoy widespread success in Australia."
I've never seen it on sale in Australia and I don't know anyone who drinks it. (That doesn't mean it isn't on sale here somewhere). The only person I've met who has drunk it was a Japanese girl, Yukiko, who thought it was an English beer because she used to drink it in England. She was surprised to find out it was Australian because she had never seen it here either.
According to wikipedia
"Victoria Bitter, or VB, is an Australian beer. It has the highest market share of all beer sold in Australia, both on tap and packaged."
I have to agree with the parent poster. The parent is proof that someone can be as dumb and ignorant as they chose to be, and they are doing a fine job too.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Saint Nic was originally from Ephesus, where it's very hot usually. He obviously hasn't adapted to the climate ... then again, maybe he's the person behind all this climate change.
The first option is to simply contact IBM and ask them how their patent is novel or different or disjoint from your work.
Actually it's in the Patent.
The shortcomings of the prior art are overcome and additional advantages are provided ...
It then provides the details (which I can't be bothered listing here because I'm lazy).
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7552305.PN.&OS=PN/7552305&RS=PN/7552305
No, it's not 'only mentioned to say that it's surrounded by controversy'. He is mentioning it because it was what Einstein was most famous for.
Also, he only mentions one philosopher who bagged it, and said others acclaimed it.
'the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly'
Einstein and Bergson actually became great friends and Einstein said he respected him. A lot of physicists were highly critical of Einstein's General Theory of relativity at the time.
Arrhenius spent as much time on the Brownian movement as he did on relativity. It is hardly 'at length and in detail'.
Of course, he spoke longer on the Photoelectric effect because that was considered the main thing he was getting the prize for.'
A third group of studies, for which in particular Einstein has received the Nobel Prize, falls within the domain of the quantum theory ...
I would go on to say that this was singled out because it was considered 'a law' where as Relativity and his Kinetic theory were both theories. It didn't get as big a kudos at that stage because the Nobel committee were actually having an in-fight over the nomination. General Relativity at that stage was considered "pie in the sky", with no evidence to even suggest it was correct, where as Special Relativity was considered ground breaking by most physicists (but not all). The wording of the prize was considered a compromise where the committee didn't give Einstein a prize for what was considered 'pie in the sky' speculation (General Relativity), but still allowed them to give a prize to a scientist they felt deserved it.
Arrhenius was the one who allowed Einstein to give his Nobel Prize acceptance lecture on Relativity.
Oh great, and in ten years we'll be running out of ice and need to mine something else to make touch screens!!!!
Actually, Relativity was mentioned as part of the award. In fact, in the presentation speech for the award it was mentioned first, followed by a kinetic theory relating to brownian movement, and finally the photo-electric effect explained using quantum physics.
So, though the award is listed as it being given to him "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The presentation speech makes it perfectly well known that the 'Theoretical Physics' part is relativity and his kinetic theory for Brownian Movement.
'Einstein never was acknowledged for Relativity, for example. (He basically won it for the photoelectric effect work he did.)'
'If you check the award you'll see he received it for 'The Photoelectric Effect and other contributions to physics' I think relativity would come under the 'other contributions'. It may not have been a direct pat on the back for his Relativity work but it still covered it indirectly.
Finally we have where he's been hiding. Send in the Silver Surfer!!! Um ... let's hope we send the right Silver Surfer!!!
Linux is not a Russian OS and is at the end f its life cycle ... unlike the Russian OS Windows Stalin ... I mean Seven! D'oh!
As long as it keeps those step motors rolling so I can get places, 128 MHz is fine. :-)
... for female astronauts. That probably won't just stop bone loss, it might make my bone bigger than ever!
So, would you say it is time for us to panic?
You put it somewhere (with books and toys in hand) and you can safely come back a couple of hours later. It will be there and you will not hear a squeak in the meantime.
Hmmmm, you have just repeat my mothers description of myself as a child. Of course, now that I'm an adult you can substitute toys for computer.
He could get sued in this case if the libel was considered 'Criminal Defamation' which is different to civil libel. But, you are correct in this case because a 'Criminal Defamation' would have required a very long stretch of the imagination. I take my hat off to you for correcting me. :-)
I'm pretty sure I've related this story on here before, but here goes again.
I used to work for West Australian Police (as a civilian) and one of the things I used to do was look after juvenile delinquents. I had a high school kid with me one day who tried telling me that maths was crap and he didn't need to learn it etc.
I asked him, 'If you were offered a job for $400 a week or one that paid $50 an hour for 40 hours work a week, which would you take?'
He insisted the $400 a week job was worth more than the $50 an hour x 40 hours job. I had to explain to him that the $50 an hour x 40 hours a week was $2000 a week. He still insisted for a while that the $400 a week job was more. It was hell trying to get him to think it through.
But, the main point is, how relevant is the maths we are teaching now a days to what they will use. Many will need at least basic skills and they will need those skills re-inforced as they go through school. If an average kid in High School can't tell the difference in pay between a $400 a week job and a $2000 a week job, then society has failed. Good skills in the areas that they will use in every day situations (like not getting ripped off for change or bank interest etc) is important. Learning how to calculate the area under a curve using calculus, less so for the average student.
A similar thing happened to Lori Drew with the Megan Meier suicide. They charged her under laws meant to stop hacking (unauthorized access - she breached the ToS of myspace), and it was later overturned when it was realised just how ridiculous it was. Now, I don't agree with what she did, and I don't like the actions of this asshat either. But twisting the law to get a prosecution? Perhaps I'm naive, but the democratic process is screwed when stuff like this happens.
In this case the law wasn't twisted. In the UK the Harassment laws cover whether this would have been done in person or over the internet. The Public Nuisance laws that would have covered it prior to the internet have been in existence for hundreds of years. In about 1997 they drafted some new laws to take into account that harassment done on-line would be treated the same as over the phone or in person etc because others were getting around conviction by claiming that because the delivery method (the internet) wasn't specifically mentioned in the Public Nuisance laws that they were therefore not violating the law.
The law used to convict this guy is in deed the correct law to use and is in no way twisting any other laws in order to make a conviction.
You're not comparing apples with oranges
Sorry, that should say, 'You are comparing apples with oranges.'
I love how "computer crimes" are punished on an entirely different scale to regular crimes.
Not, quite. If the guy said the same things in person he would have been convicted under Harassment laws. Public Nuisance (which in the UK is both a crime and a tort) and also Anti-Social behaviour. He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
His sentence under the law would have been similar. Let me explain. One thing to remember is the main difference here is he committed this offence several times on several different sites. In real life he probably would have been convicted after just doing it once. That would have been less time in jail for him, but only because it would have been a first offence and he wouldn't have done it multiple times. Because he has done the crime multiple times his sentence is longer, if he had done the offence in person and got away with it until he'd done the same amount as what he's done on the internet, he might even have got a longer sentence, but most likely about the same.
You can go bottle someone (break a glass bottle over their head) and you get an average of zero days in jail (suspended for two years). You can go mug someone and get only a week of "hard time" with a year of parole. I mean heck you can go run someone down in your car and still get a lighter sentence than 18 weeks...
You're not comparing apples with oranges. What he has done is covered under Harassment laws. If he'd turned up at the homes of families and friends,or funerals or anywhere else and said these things he would still have got prosecuted. Cases are handled on a case by case basis. You can point to a case where someone ran someone down and got a lighter sentence, but there are also cases where people have run someone down and got longer sentences. Also, you break a bottle over someones head and they get a two year suspended sentence, you break another bottle over someones head you then have those two years from the suspended sentence to serve PLUS whatever else they throw on top for the second crime. This guy has committed the crime multiple times already. It's like catching someone who has repeatedly hit people over the head with bottles till they finally got caught. Someone like that would not get a suspended sentence.
There is no level of rationality to computer crime sentences because the "old people" on both sides of the bench are simply too ignorant and out of touch to really know what the crime involved or how serious it was. This case should never have wasted the UK's courts time and public money let alone the cost of keeping him in jail for any period at all.
Whether done on a computer or in person this crime would have gone to trial and a similar sentence handed down. The only difference I see here is that you think that because it was done on a computer that it shouldn't have gone to trial. The law used in this case was the On-line Harassment laws and it was introduced to stop a loophole of people claiming that because the old harassment laws never stipulated using technology that they could get off. In other words the "old people" who introduced the laws didn't see any difference between someone phoning you and harassing you and someone using the internet to do the exact same thing, the only difference they saw was the delivery method.
Frankly I have a VERY low opinion of the police, judge, and state for this one. I want a million pounds spent on arrested serious criminals and keeping them locked away. Give the mugger, violent thug, or drug dealers 18 week sentences instead of saving them for the "omg computer terrurist?! he uses microsoft and word to send deadly communications of doom!"
Apples and oranges again. He was convicted for harassment ... and if he did it in
I don't understand it. It seems much worse to me to go to someones funeral or wake and say nasty things about them and yet that's fine.
No, this isn't fine. If the guy turned up at the wake or funeral and said the same things he would have been convicted under Harassment laws very easily. Public Nuisance (which in the UK is both a crime and a tort) and also Anti-Social behaviour. He probably would have got a similar sentence under the law for doing this in person. He probably could also have been sued under defamation laws too (claiming to have had sex with the deceased after they died can be seen as a deliberate act of tarnishing their reputations).
The guy is a dick but this is ridiculous. It's not illegal to be a dick, nor should it be. Things like this make me worried for the future.
It is illegal, and it should be. I'm worried by the amount of people who don't understand 'Freedom of Speech' laws. They give people the 'Freedom' to express views, no matter how right or wrong they are, they do NOT give people the freedom to say whatever they like about whomever they like whenever they like. That's why libel, slander, and pubic nuisance laws etc have been around for hundreds of years. (Yes, these laws existed before you were born). If they didn't exist I'd be very worried for the future.
Gees, as I've commented on other sites over the last few days concerning this.
1. Who was the old lady talking to? Well, plenty of people off screen for her to be talking to. She was probably blabbering to the old man in front of her even.
2. What does she have in her hand? Well, I can't see anything in her hand. The darkness might just be shadow. She might have had a tooth ache, she might have been holding her hand like that to hear the gentleman in front of her talking to her. There are so many different reasons why people hold their hand to their ear other than talking on a mobile phone.
3. She stops, turns and looks in shock at the camera. Well, someone off screen, possibly the cameraman, might have said something to her to cause her to stop and look his way. It's not exactly easy to see if she did look in shock because most of her head is in the shadow of her hat etc.
If you came from the future why would you walk around using a communications device openly anyway? That's the sort of thing to get you locked up in an asylum for 'hearing peoples voices coming out of a little box.'
Most plausible explanation I can think of is a certain film maker is trying to raise their profile by making a story out of nothing. He really should become a journalist.
That would be VB (Victoria Bitter) overload.
As wikipedia states
"Foster's Lager does not enjoy widespread success in Australia."
I've never seen it on sale in Australia and I don't know anyone who drinks it. (That doesn't mean it isn't on sale here somewhere). The only person I've met who has drunk it was a Japanese girl, Yukiko, who thought it was an English beer because she used to drink it in England. She was surprised to find out it was Australian because she had never seen it here either.
According to wikipedia
"Victoria Bitter, or VB, is an Australian beer. It has the highest market share of all beer sold in Australia, both on tap and packaged."
Without remembering the movie, I'd guess he was looking at a Mark Rothko painting. He made great big square patches of paint famous.
I have to agree with the parent poster. The parent is proof that someone can be as dumb and ignorant as they chose to be, and they are doing a fine job too. :-)
I think they mean you are supposed to feel like a 14 year old boy feeling a fourteen year old girl for the first time, again. :-)
So, he's repeating what was said in 2004. How is this news?
Russell Johnson (aka The Professor) could have made it from coconuts and wood.