For example, a Greek treatise published a generation before Archimedes' proofs of the lever laws explains why, if you were a galley slave, you'd want to work the oars near the center of the ship instead of closer to the hull.
You'd want to be near the center of the ship only if you were interested in being more efficient at your slave job. Since the slave near the hull has to move his arms over a lesser distance, it could be argued that the hull seat was the better one.
Of course, if you were rammed by another ship, you'd have a greater chance of being killed or sustaining horrible injury if you were in the hull seat...but since a rammed ship usually sank, and the galley slaves were usually chained to their oars, the outcome would probably be much the same, in the end...
It looks like the RIAA's "making available" theory, with this latest decision against, has been pretty much shot down. Any court who wants to support this argument will now have to justify going against significant precedent.
I'm sure there are several alternate business models that ISps could employ that would result in fairer, more even-handed access and pricing.
However, this is not in the ISPs best interests. The ISPs interests are best served by the current business model...the promise-you-x-amount-of-bandwidth-but-give-you-only-0.4x business model.
Yes, I remember the posters and movies...my favorite was "duck and cover". I tried to point out to my teachers that our desks, although of sturdy American craftsmanship, were simply not up to the task of deflecting the blast of a thermonuclear weapon. Once, I was sent to the principal's office for my audacity.
However, your previous posts were making the claim that U.S citizens were the target of propaganda leaflets released from airplanes during the Cold War. I assure you that that was not the case, at least in Detroit, MI (YMMV).
Your point about posters and videos, while accurate, is rather beside the point. We all knew the government propaganda was just that - propaganda. Propaganda isn't nearly as objectionable if it is out in the open...it's the propaganda that is disguised as valid news reporting, whatever the media, that is especially perfidious.
That's funny...I don't remember having any leaflets dropped on me from airplanes during the Cold War...and I was in the U.S. during the whole thing. Strange...
First of all, please try not to use the pejorative term "anti-military". We're all pretty sick of that straw man.
Second, we're not talking about a "pro-military org" placing propaganda, as opposed to your "anti-military org". We're talking about THE MILITARY. If you can't see the difference, there's little point in continuing this conversation.
Information warfare and propaganda have always been a vital and necessary component of military planning. It's much easier if you can get your enemy to surrender rather than shoot them.
It's our own media that's being manipulated. Are you implying that the citizens are "the enemy"?
Notably, and most unfortunately absent from the report, is the very real question of whether the military should be manipulating domestic media.
The rest of our media is manipulated...why not blogs? Compared to the other forms of media, blogs are notoriously easy to manipulate. With the ever-growing cacophony of voices on the internet, it's more and more difficult for Joe Sixpack to adequately fact-check a given story...so they increasingly just believe what they hear from their mouthpiece of choice. I personally have to debunk all of the ridiculous stories my wife's family mindlessly forwards around to each other without question....the latest was that Obama is Muslim.
"Deciphering" does not necessarily equal "playback", and from Scott's subsequent remarks, it should be obvious to everyone that he did not intend the two to be equivalent.
I'll post the relevant passage again, since you seem to have missed it in both the article and my former post:
In a self-published memoir in 1878, he railed against Edison for "appropriating" his methods and misconstruing the purpose of recording technology. The goal, Scott argued, was not sound reproduction, but "writing speech, which is what the word phonograph means."
Amusing that you advise me to 'read more closely', when you apparently cannot comprehend the above.
Why is it not the same? It *was* intended for playback, but he realized that technology was far beyond him.
Um, no, it wasn't. He never intended to play back the recording.
As it says in TFA, he was simply hoping to put down a recording that someone would later be able to decipher, which is exactly what happened.
TFA says nothing of the sort. In fact, TFA makes it clear that Scott considered Edison's work a bastardization of his own.
From TFA:
The 10-second recording of a singer crooning the folk song "Au Clair de la Lune" was discovered earlier this month in an archive in Paris by a group of American audio historians. It was made, the researchers say, on April 9, 1860, on a phonautograph, a machine designed to record sounds visually, not to play them back.... Scott's device had a barrel-shaped horn attached to a stylus, which etched sound waves onto sheets of paper blackened by smoke from an oil lamp. The recordings were not intended for listening; the idea of audio playback had not been conceived. Rather, Scott sought to create a paper record of human speech that could later be deciphered.... Scott is in many ways an unlikely hero of recorded sound. Born in Paris in 1817, he was a man of letters, not a scientist, who worked in the printing trade and as a librarian. He published a book on the history of shorthand, and evidently viewed sound recording as an extension of stenography. In a self-published memoir in 1878, he railed against Edison for "appropriating" his methods and misconstruing the purpose of recording technology. The goal, Scott argued, was not sound reproduction, but "writing speech, which is what the word phonograph means."
Since de Martinville's "recording" was never even intended for playback, much less successfully played back at the time, I'd say that Edison retains the title.
Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?
The latter. This is pure damage-control on Google's part...they can see their "do no evil" veneer is starting to wear a bit thin, and are busily applying a few more layers of polish to keep things looking pretty. If they were actually sincere, they might address some of the root problems, such as the glaring privacy issues inherent in Gmail and Google Desktop.
Originally, the contract was awarded at a cost of $596 million to Harris Corporation. However, the GAO has now estimated the revised contract, now costing $647 million, could grow to $2 billion and the equipment may still not work properly.
1.4 billion is one hell of an overrun...and after all that, the equipment may still not work properly?
Is the Harris Corporation currently hiring? I'd like to get me some of that boondoggle.
A whole bunch of "futuristic" designs, and not one that utilizes a flexible LCD.
With a flexible LCD that rolls up when not in use, coupled with a flexible keyboard that likewise rolls up, one can escape (at least partially), the limiting factor of computer design...that is, having a system that a human can interface with comfortably.
The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.
I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.
RTFA. The discrepancy isn't between Felten and the voting machine...it's between the voting machine and itself. The machine generated results that were self-contradictory.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, a Greek treatise published a generation before Archimedes' proofs of the lever laws explains why, if you were a galley slave, you'd want to work the oars near the center of the ship instead of closer to the hull.
You'd want to be near the center of the ship only if you were interested in being more efficient at your slave job. Since the slave near the hull has to move his arms over a lesser distance, it could be argued that the hull seat was the better one.
Of course, if you were rammed by another ship, you'd have a greater chance of being killed or sustaining horrible injury if you were in the hull seat...but since a rammed ship usually sank, and the galley slaves were usually chained to their oars, the outcome would probably be much the same, in the end...
It looks like the RIAA's "making available" theory, with this latest decision against, has been pretty much shot down. Any court who wants to support this argument will now have to justify going against significant precedent.
I'm sure there are several alternate business models that ISps could employ that would result in fairer, more even-handed access and pricing.
However, this is not in the ISPs best interests. The ISPs interests are best served by the current business model...the promise-you-x-amount-of-bandwidth-but-give-you-only-0.4x business model.
Don't expect change anytime soon.
Yes, I remember the posters and movies...my favorite was "duck and cover". I tried to point out to my teachers that our desks, although of sturdy American craftsmanship, were simply not up to the task of deflecting the blast of a thermonuclear weapon. Once, I was sent to the principal's office for my audacity.
However, your previous posts were making the claim that U.S citizens were the target of propaganda leaflets released from airplanes during the Cold War. I assure you that that was not the case, at least in Detroit, MI (YMMV).
Your point about posters and videos, while accurate, is rather beside the point. We all knew the government propaganda was just that - propaganda. Propaganda isn't nearly as objectionable if it is out in the open...it's the propaganda that is disguised as valid news reporting, whatever the media, that is especially perfidious.
That's funny...I don't remember having any leaflets dropped on me from airplanes during the Cold War...and I was in the U.S. during the whole thing. Strange...
First of all, please try not to use the pejorative term "anti-military". We're all pretty sick of that straw man.
Second, we're not talking about a "pro-military org" placing propaganda, as opposed to your "anti-military org". We're talking about THE MILITARY. If you can't see the difference, there's little point in continuing this conversation.
Very well said. Please mod parent up.
Information warfare and propaganda have always been a vital and necessary component of military planning. It's much easier if you can get your enemy to surrender rather than shoot them.
It's our own media that's being manipulated. Are you implying that the citizens are "the enemy"?
And just what makes you think they're doing it for free?
Notably, and most unfortunately absent from the report, is the very real question of whether the military should be manipulating domestic media.
The rest of our media is manipulated...why not blogs? Compared to the other forms of media, blogs are notoriously easy to manipulate. With the ever-growing cacophony of voices on the internet, it's more and more difficult for Joe Sixpack to adequately fact-check a given story...so they increasingly just believe what they hear from their mouthpiece of choice. I personally have to debunk all of the ridiculous stories my wife's family mindlessly forwards around to each other without question....the latest was that Obama is Muslim.
ENOUGH ALREADY!
Idiot mods. Before you mod something up, at least check the link to make sure you're not being rickrolled.
I went to TFA to check the resolution of the projectors in question, only to find that TFA had no data whatsoever on that topic.
Without data on resolution, it's kinda pointless to discuss these things. Talk about vaporware...
Yup...just like powered flight and space travel...pipe dreams all, right?
"Deciphering" does not necessarily equal "playback", and from Scott's subsequent remarks, it should be obvious to everyone that he did not intend the two to be equivalent.
I'll post the relevant passage again, since you seem to have missed it in both the article and my former post:
Amusing that you advise me to 'read more closely', when you apparently cannot comprehend the above.
Um, no, it wasn't. He never intended to play back the recording.
As it says in TFA, he was simply hoping to put down a recording that someone would later be able to decipher, which is exactly what happened.
TFA says nothing of the sort. In fact, TFA makes it clear that Scott considered Edison's work a bastardization of his own.
From TFA:
Since de Martinville's "recording" was never even intended for playback, much less successfully played back at the time, I'd say that Edison retains the title.
Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?
The latter. This is pure damage-control on Google's part...they can see their "do no evil" veneer is starting to wear a bit thin, and are busily applying a few more layers of polish to keep things looking pretty. If they were actually sincere, they might address some of the root problems, such as the glaring privacy issues inherent in Gmail and Google Desktop.
*woosh*
To achieve 128 mph, the drone would have to be at an altitude of 1150 feet at the time of failure.
Also, with a top speed of only 50 knots, the trajectory wold be pretty close to vertical at the time of impact.
Originally, the contract was awarded at a cost of $596 million to Harris Corporation. However, the GAO has now estimated the revised contract, now costing $647 million, could grow to $2 billion and the equipment may still not work properly.
1.4 billion is one hell of an overrun...and after all that, the equipment may still not work properly?
Is the Harris Corporation currently hiring? I'd like to get me some of that boondoggle.
A whole bunch of "futuristic" designs, and not one that utilizes a flexible LCD.
With a flexible LCD that rolls up when not in use, coupled with a flexible keyboard that likewise rolls up, one can escape (at least partially), the limiting factor of computer design...that is, having a system that a human can interface with comfortably.
The device featured in the article only weighs 18 pounds fully loaded. While this weight plummeting from a height is sufficient to kill anyone directly below, the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami.
I'm more concerned about plans to have drones of this sort fitted with Taser rounds, myself.
Great article on debunking the spurious claims of health risks from Wi-Fi can be found here.
RTFA. The discrepancy isn't between Felten and the voting machine...it's between the voting machine and itself. The machine generated results that were self-contradictory.