Right, but the President's office can write up a bill (or just take one from a lobbyist or the FBI or whomever), and walk it down to a likely Senator & Representative, have them introduce the bill, get it voted on, and then sign it. All legal, but the bill "came from the President".
I've got a Glock 9mm (with a cable lock thru the mechanism, locked in a safe it hasn't been out of in months if not years), my wife has a shot gun, in the same safe. We've got a oxy/acetylene welding/cutting torch and hacksaws in the garage. My wife has a compound bow from when she was doing archery competitively. I probably have a slingshot here, I know I had 3-5 of them (the nice surgical tubing ones) when I was growing up, and I figure they made it into the boxes when I moved from my parents' house many years ago. We don't have full-on gas masks, but since my wife does Volcanology, we have some masks for dealing why highly toxic gasses (H2SO4?) which might be of use against tear gas. Not to mention the scuba gear with masks which would probably allow us to deal with tear gas.
None of those items are illegal for us to own in the U.S.A. Certainly the bucket of urine is strange, but not illegal, and it's disputed in other comments whether the urine was related to the alleged protesters at all.
Certainly, the police could bust down our door, and come up with a story about how we had to tools for mischief, seize many of our possessions and jail us without cause, and sell it to the public. That wouldn't make it any less wrong.
Make the market efficient enough that the trillion or so spent on the Iraq war comes out of the oil company pockets, instead of adding to them, and I'll agree with you.
When the industry/consumer actually pays _all_ the costs associated with the technology, then we can do away with taxes that favor one approach over another. Until then, I'm all for taxing polluting & non-renewable industries and giving tax-breaks to non-polluting & renewables.
No, coastal CA. The last time I remember hail was about 4 years ago. The pieces were less than 1cm. And that's living ~5 hours north of SLO County. When I lived 2 hours south of SLO (for 35 years), I remember hail maybe 3 times, all the same small pieces.
Bad analogy, because you can buy a "fixer" house, do some work and sell it at a large markup. That's unlikely to be the case with a computer, as no one is going to pay a big markup for your "used" computer with your customizations that make it work well for you. Also, for most people, the house is the end, not the means, and the computer is the means, not the end.
However, your points were still valid, even if the analogy was not.
If I create a work with the expectation of owning the copyright for 10 years, then extending the copyright on that work to 15 or 20 years does nothing to encourage me to create that work, since I already went to the effort to create it with the expectation of 10 years of income.
On that basis, I would argue that any extension of copyright for extant works is not to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
I would have to say that _retroactive_ copyright extension should be seen as unconstitutional. After all, if the statues are only allowed to 'promote the arts & sciences' (or whatever the actual wording is), you'd have to show how retroactively extending a copyright which at the time of creation was a certain length would somehow influence that creator positively. Of course now, creators know that in the future they'll be able to buy off congress to extend their copyrights indefinitely...
Some woman giving a 401K presentation at my work was talking about their website and how they have the question/answer fall back for when you forget your password. She said not to use a question with a simple, possibly well known answer like "What's your favorite color?" I piped up with my answer, "Fish!"
The point is, just because the question is constant, the answer doesn't have to be, it can basically be a second password.
My high chemistry teacher got into trouble for blowing up a hydrogen balloon in the classroom. It blew out the window it was next to, and the Principal was nearby and came running. All before my time. By the time I got there, he wasn't throwing phosphorus into the biology teacher's fish pond either.
He did still take a CO2 extinguisher to my backpack and froze it pretty much solid though...
Heh, the way people get rich is to be price whores, or just not buy shit that doesn't _make_ money (stocks, properties, tools) at all. If someone is paying $45 for a cable, they probably didn't become rich, the were born that way.
I have no problem with the tech being something like this: large database of plates which are wanted for 'doing bad things' plate recognized, checked against database if match found, alert police officer of car, offense, so officer can use judgement about what to do.
if the match isn't found, all memory of the plate should be destroyed as if the plate was never recognized.
Security means defense in depth. An obvious camera that the police office can confiscate, and a 3G connected hidden camera streaming data to an out-of-country replicated server.
You have a valid point, but the article makes the point that the entire system for the Atom process consumes more energy encoding the MP3, because while the Atom is a more efficient processor, it's power use is a small part of the overall system, so having the system 'on' longer to do the MP3 encoding will consume more energy over all.
Oh Yeah, we'll understand them better, but you've got to read that last sentence's two clauses together. That better understanding isn't going to return us to the belief that electrons obey classical mechanics. That's what I got from the last sentence of your comment I was replying to.
This article talks about electrons (any wave-particle) moving faster than light.
Of course they conform to the same physical laws as macroscopic objects, but opposite the way you are thinking. Macroscopic objects appear to behave as conforming to "classical physics mechanics" due to the interaction of huge numbers of tiny particles that behave according to quantum mechanics. We already know that electrons do not follow classical mechanics. We're never going to 'understand them better' and discover that, "no, we were wrong, the model of the atom as a dense ball with light little balls orbiting it is correct."
I got the feeling that speeds could be _very_ high. He showed his graphs where still was a line moving vertically, and moving at 'c' was 'only' 45 degrees off vertical (time on the vertical axis and 1-dimensional space on the horizontal). If I had to guess, that's how electrons 'pop' between energy levels when hit by a photon.
Interestingly, just this morning I was reading QED by Feynman, and photons & electrons do travel faster than 'c', but the probability is low, and rapidly gets lower as the distance increases. And the distances he was talking about where 'c' starts to dominate are those greater than from the nucleus to the electron shells, so "really really small" compared to interstellar distances. However, could it be that with a big enough lens (on the order of a galaxy), that you could "focus" any photons that may have jumped from Earth to there. Of course I haven't done the math, and the probabilities may be such that every bit of energy ever given off by our solar system would still only give a 1 in 10^Googol odds of a single photon getting there before a photon traveling at 'c', but if you believe quantum physics (or at least Feynman), then it's possible for at least single particles to travel short distances faster than 'c'.
If the interstate commerce clause can regulate my growing and selling of marijuana to my neighbor here in California, then I don't see why it can't be used to regulate CO2 emissions, which do cross state lines...
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the President's office can write up a bill (or just take one from a lobbyist or the FBI or whomever), and walk it down to a likely Senator & Representative, have them introduce the bill, get it voted on, and then sign it. All legal, but the bill "came from the President".
I've got a Glock 9mm (with a cable lock thru the mechanism, locked in a safe it hasn't been out of in months if not years), my wife has a shot gun, in the same safe. We've got a oxy/acetylene welding/cutting torch and hacksaws in the garage. My wife has a compound bow from when she was doing archery competitively. I probably have a slingshot here, I know I had 3-5 of them (the nice surgical tubing ones) when I was growing up, and I figure they made it into the boxes when I moved from my parents' house many years ago. We don't have full-on gas masks, but since my wife does Volcanology, we have some masks for dealing why highly toxic gasses (H2SO4?) which might be of use against tear gas. Not to mention the scuba gear with masks which would probably allow us to deal with tear gas.
None of those items are illegal for us to own in the U.S.A. Certainly the bucket of urine is strange, but not illegal, and it's disputed in other comments whether the urine was related to the alleged protesters at all.
Certainly, the police could bust down our door, and come up with a story about how we had to tools for mischief, seize many of our possessions and jail us without cause, and sell it to the public. That wouldn't make it any less wrong.
Go on ebay and buy yourself an apple II
I got that the joke was related to the story, I just chose to ignore it.
Turtles. At least that's the store in Hawkings 'A Brief History of Time'.
Make the market efficient enough that the trillion or so spent on the Iraq war comes out of the oil company pockets, instead of adding to them, and I'll agree with you.
When the industry/consumer actually pays _all_ the costs associated with the technology, then we can do away with taxes that favor one approach over another. Until then, I'm all for taxing polluting & non-renewable industries and giving tax-breaks to non-polluting & renewables.
Hail?
No, coastal CA. The last time I remember hail was about 4 years ago. The pieces were less than 1cm. And that's living ~5 hours north of SLO County. When I lived 2 hours south of SLO (for 35 years), I remember hail maybe 3 times, all the same small pieces.
No, it's an ARM7, so no MMU, so no NetBSD.
At least I think that's true, based on the Atmel part number quoted in another posting.
Bad analogy, because you can buy a "fixer" house, do some work and sell it at a large markup. That's unlikely to be the case with a computer, as no one is going to pay a big markup for your "used" computer with your customizations that make it work well for you. Also, for most people, the house is the end, not the means, and the computer is the means, not the end.
However, your points were still valid, even if the analogy was not.
If you're going to go to the trouble to do that, go to a little more and sign your outgoing messages so you can identify legitimate bounces.
Using BATV:
http://mipassoc.org/batv/
Or SRS:
http://www.openspf.org/SRS
If I create a work with the expectation of owning the copyright for 10 years, then extending the copyright on that work to 15 or 20 years does nothing to encourage me to create that work, since I already went to the effort to create it with the expectation of 10 years of income.
On that basis, I would argue that any extension of copyright for extant works is not to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
I would have to say that _retroactive_ copyright extension should be seen as unconstitutional. After all, if the statues are only allowed to 'promote the arts & sciences' (or whatever the actual wording is), you'd have to show how retroactively extending a copyright which at the time of creation was a certain length would somehow influence that creator positively. Of course now, creators know that in the future they'll be able to buy off congress to extend their copyrights indefinitely...
Some woman giving a 401K presentation at my work was talking about their website and how they have the question/answer fall back for when you forget your password. She said not to use a question with a simple, possibly well known answer like "What's your favorite color?" I piped up with my answer, "Fish!"
The point is, just because the question is constant, the answer doesn't have to be, it can basically be a second password.
My high chemistry teacher got into trouble for blowing up a hydrogen balloon in the classroom. It blew out the window it was next to, and the Principal was nearby and came running. All before my time. By the time I got there, he wasn't throwing phosphorus into the biology teacher's fish pond either.
He did still take a CO2 extinguisher to my backpack and froze it pretty much solid though...
Heh, the way people get rich is to be price whores, or just not buy shit that doesn't _make_ money (stocks, properties, tools) at all. If someone is paying $45 for a cable, they probably didn't become rich, the were born that way.
I have no problem with the tech being something like this:
large database of plates which are wanted for 'doing bad things'
plate recognized, checked against database
if match found, alert police officer of car, offense, so officer can use judgement about what to do.
if the match isn't found, all memory of the plate should be destroyed as if the plate was never recognized.
Security means defense in depth. An obvious camera that the police office can confiscate, and a 3G connected hidden camera streaming data to an out-of-country replicated server.
You have a valid point, but the article makes the point that the entire system for the Atom process consumes more energy encoding the MP3, because while the Atom is a more efficient processor, it's power use is a small part of the overall system, so having the system 'on' longer to do the MP3 encoding will consume more energy over all.
Mods on crack, film at 11:00. :-)
Oh Yeah, we'll understand them better, but you've got to read that last sentence's two clauses together. That better understanding isn't going to return us to the belief that electrons obey classical mechanics. That's what I got from the last sentence of your comment I was replying to.
This article talks about electrons (any wave-particle) moving faster than light.
Of course they conform to the same physical laws as macroscopic objects, but opposite the way you are thinking. Macroscopic objects appear to behave as conforming to "classical physics mechanics" due to the interaction of huge numbers of tiny particles that behave according to quantum mechanics. We already know that electrons do not follow classical mechanics. We're never going to 'understand them better' and discover that, "no, we were wrong, the model of the atom as a dense ball with light little balls orbiting it is correct."
No. At least nothing exists that matches anything that someone has described both as 'God' and specifies with any precision.
I got the feeling that speeds could be _very_ high. He showed his graphs where still was a line moving vertically, and moving at 'c' was 'only' 45 degrees off vertical (time on the vertical axis and 1-dimensional space on the horizontal). If I had to guess, that's how electrons 'pop' between energy levels when hit by a photon.
Interestingly, just this morning I was reading QED by Feynman, and photons & electrons do travel faster than 'c', but the probability is low, and rapidly gets lower as the distance increases. And the distances he was talking about where 'c' starts to dominate are those greater than from the nucleus to the electron shells, so "really really small" compared to interstellar distances. However, could it be that with a big enough lens (on the order of a galaxy), that you could "focus" any photons that may have jumped from Earth to there. Of course I haven't done the math, and the probabilities may be such that every bit of energy ever given off by our solar system would still only give a 1 in 10^Googol odds of a single photon getting there before a photon traveling at 'c', but if you believe quantum physics (or at least Feynman), then it's possible for at least single particles to travel short distances faster than 'c'.
If the interstate commerce clause can regulate my growing and selling of marijuana to my neighbor here in California, then I don't see why it can't be used to regulate CO2 emissions, which do cross state lines...