In this case, most people who are opposed to sex and certain words on TV are also opposed to violence on TV.
I somehow doubt that. I'd be interested if you had sound data, though. My dad was staunchly against nudity, cursing, and black people on TV, but had no problems with blood, guns, and torture. My mom on the other hand couldn't stand violence, but had no issues with cursing or sex on TV. If you watch any Christian TV, you'll see that they have very little issue showing images of mangled children in earthquakes caused by deals with the devil. But I'd be surprised if Pat Robertson ever says "fuck" on the air. (Or even in the bedroom for that matter.)
If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.
I've wondered about this saying. It only makes sense in the context of McVeigh, Embassy bombings ('83 or '98), IRA, Contras, that sort of thing. The difference is those people were fighting something that existed where they actually lived. The 9/11 attack was carried out thousands of miles away. No freedom fighting there. Just exporting violence. I'm not saying McVeigh or the mujaheddin were freedom fighters. Just that they saw themselves as such. Remember, the US backed a lot of these groups when it was in our "best interest."
I just don't know how the 9/11 guys could see themselves as freedom fighters. I don't think they did. I think they saw themselves as holy warriors, instead. Maybe a global freedom from American imperialism? But that's stretching it, if you're attacking on our home turf.
That looked as good as any print music I've ever seen.
I recommend that you read Lilypond's essay on the topic. This is an OK start, but there is a long way to go before this is even remotely as good as professionally printed music. This is even worse than Finale scores.* I suggest you look at Noteflight or Scorch for other examples. Specifically, the noteheads are small, the stems are too long, and the whole rest should be centered in the measure. Maybe Han-Wen can give him some pointers.
* I used to hate reading Finale scores back in the 90's. That was hot shit back then, but I always found it sterile and blocky. Lifeless, boring, etc. Luckily most homebrew guys have switched to Sibelius, which is somewhat better.
I've heard people tell stories about how legislators just put their name on a bill that they haven't even read. I don't know how often this happens, but I imagine it must be more frequent now than ever. If I had sources, I'd cite them, but for now I'm just making shit up. Our representatives are almost always in campaign mode, so I have a hard time figuring out when they get time to write the hundreds of pages that are attributed to them. I've written a few technical papers and the like, and it takes me a week just to punch out a dozen pages or so. Who knows? I like to think they at least read the bills before sponsoring them.
In fact, Apple appears to have copied much of the structure of the iPhone developer agreement and App Store from Microsoft XNA Creators Club and Xbox Live Indie Games.
Uh-oh. I hope they don't try to set up shop in Argentina.
Funny that they claim you retain copyright to your genetic information, just so they can claim you've given them permission to distribute it. In order for something to be copyrighted, it has to have creative content. That means you can't keep them from publishing it based on copyright law, but you can't grant permission based on copyright law either. They're trying to use this as an end-run against privacy and non-discrimination laws (HIPAA and GINA).
The service limitation clause is more of the same. They're pretending they're not providing a medical service, so they won't be held accountable. HIPAA privacy rules only apply to medical service providers. Very sneaky, these guys.
It's sad to think that people were mocking congress when they passed the genetic discrimination law. Now it appears they didn't go far enough. Maybe they should have made a genetic information protection law. The Supreme Court (or was it a federal court?) recently ruled that they can't patent genes (BRCA). So maybe there's hope.
It was my understanding that you can simulate the iPhone on your computer, but you can't actually load any program onto an iDevice without paying the developer fee ($99/yr). That's according to the Wikipedia article.
Several things here don't add up. The land area of Florida is about 50,000 sq miles. Multiply that by say, 1/16 inch, and you'd be looking at somewhere around 100 MILLION barrels of oil per day. That's more than the entire global consumption rate. There's just no way this one little hole in the ground could be doing that. The oil would have to be leaving the hole faster than 4000 miles per hour. Even if a sheen is visible at a tenth that, you're still looking at crazy high numbers.
On the other hand, the original estimate of 1,000 barrels per day simply doesn't add up with the size of the visible slick on the images you linked to. If it really is just 14kbbl spread over the 100 sq mi or so, the average film thickness would be less than 10 microns (.3 mils).
So just using some common sense estimation, I come up with somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 barrels per day. Any way you slice it, it's a terrible waste and a global tragedy. But we certainly don't need people inflating the truth just to get more hits on their blog.
He's even more wrong (or we're further from his vision) than you're letting on here. If you read the article closely, you'll see that he believed it would be possible to cram a device capable of transmitting a signal across the globe into a device the size of a watch. The devices we have that are the size of a watch can only transmit signals as far as the nearest cell tower. It looks to me like Tesla was imagining something sans infrastructure.
The first radio transmission of speech was in 1900, so perhaps Tesla wasn't trying to predict some crazy future. He probably just saw this watch radio thing as a simple scaling down of existing technology. He just had a fundamental misunderstanding of the energy densities required. On the other hand, they had radios capable of transmitting hundreds of miles that could fit into something the size of a clock by the 20's, so maybe he wasn't that far off.
On the side of wireless transmission of power, I feel sorry for him. Anybody who's played with Tesla coils and fluorescent lights knows how tantalizing the transmittal of power without wires can be. It's just a Bad Idea to have those sorts of voltage gradients randomly scattered about.
I don't think your corollary is as Kantian as you claim. Kant's point was doing something that is OK for everybody to do is OK. Privately enjoying a little good-old-fashioned-American-girl-on-girl-action would be OK if everybody did it. However, I wouldn't want my grandma to know about it. Not because she might think it's immoral, but because it might embarrass her to be aware of something like that.
Kant's teachings were more about actions based on personal thought, rather than fear of authority or shame. In fact, you could argue that his categorical imperative might occasionally be at odds with your corollary. For instance, there could be some activity that might be OK for everybody to do, so long as it is kept secret. Voting, for instance for a particular party, is something that the world would be OK if everybody did it. However, if it were not done in secret, that would not be OK, because of the external pressures easily exerted on voters in a non-secret voting system.
For example, there's a crazy urologist in Florida won't see patients who openly voted for Obama. It could just as easily be a hospital, university, or restaurant that refuses service based on other privately OK proclivities. It would be pretty hard to stay enrolled in Oral Roberts University if your secret sinful addiction to cigarettes became public.
As it relates to the Google quote, it's not about "don't put it on the Internet." With the power of Google, you don't have to put anything on the Internet. They can just store the correlation, "Oh the MAC address physically located at this address likes to surf donkey porn." Then when some politician wants to scare the public all they have to do is hack Google (China style) parse the data and show the scary color-coded map at a Republican rally. Or they can just make stuff up and claim it came from Google. I guess that would be easier. I think I need to go adjust my tinfoil hat now.
Go is simpler than checkers? Is that a joke? Have you played those two games? Go is on an entirely different plane of difficulty. It's more comparable to chess. In case you didn't know, checkers is solved.
The patent wasn't filed until 2003 (thus expiring in 2023). If they were offering it for sale in 1999, then they would have had to file the patent by 2000. Something doesn't add up.
In the US, anyway, it is closely related to "hate crimes" which are structured in a way such that the only victims are non-whites and the only perpetrators are white males.
You are downright wrong about this. Of the 9,691 recorded hate crime victims in the US in 2008, only about half were targeted for their race. Of the racial victims, 16.8% were singled out because they were white. source
It's hardly laziness that keeps people from making their own similar but free devices. It's all about the legal and financial landscape.
There are so many patent landmines that it's almost impossible to start up something innovative without running into somebody's patent on something. Companies like Apple with a large portfolio are at a distinct advantage, since they have leverage to use with other companies. The start-up has no ability to leverage their portfolio, even if they have one. If a larger company wants to infringe on a small company's patent, the smaller company will rarely have the budget for a legal team to make them stop.
Then there's the financial landscape. Right now, it's much harder than it was in the 80's and 90's to get venture capital for this sort of thing. Additionally, the cost to get into some of these markets has grown; it's in the tens of millions for consumer electronics. To make matters worse, it doesn't scale well. Most of the cost is in the research, development, and plant set-up. These costs are approximately the same whether you sell 10 units or 10,000 or 10,000,000.
One final thing, we're talking about programmers and consumers, not necessarily people with business acumen. It's not laziness, it's just not their skill set. I know a thing or two about programming. Imagine my surprise when I found out I can't just program whatever I want for my wife's iPod touch. I didn't bother starting a new company selling free iPods. It's not because I'm lazy, but because: a) I have a real job, b) it would cost way too much, c) few people would buy it, d) it's impossible to do without getting sued, and e) it's a hell of a lot easier just to put the program on a server that my wife can access on Safari on her iPod instead.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, most people who are opposed to sex and certain words on TV are also opposed to violence on TV.
I somehow doubt that. I'd be interested if you had sound data, though. My dad was staunchly against nudity, cursing, and black people on TV, but had no problems with blood, guns, and torture. My mom on the other hand couldn't stand violence, but had no issues with cursing or sex on TV. If you watch any Christian TV, you'll see that they have very little issue showing images of mangled children in earthquakes caused by deals with the devil. But I'd be surprised if Pat Robertson ever says "fuck" on the air. (Or even in the bedroom for that matter.)
If you have some kind of expensive disability, you're out; and if you're predisposed to expensive conditions developing in the future, you're on your own...family history could be used, or they have these really inexpensive genetic tests now like at 23andme.com. We'd have to have people pay for their own, of course (to keep costs down), and disclose the result to the company, and anything expensive in their future we'd have to drop them.
GINA makes this illegal.
I've wondered about this saying. It only makes sense in the context of McVeigh, Embassy bombings ('83 or '98), IRA, Contras, that sort of thing. The difference is those people were fighting something that existed where they actually lived. The 9/11 attack was carried out thousands of miles away. No freedom fighting there. Just exporting violence. I'm not saying McVeigh or the mujaheddin were freedom fighters. Just that they saw themselves as such. Remember, the US backed a lot of these groups when it was in our "best interest."
I just don't know how the 9/11 guys could see themselves as freedom fighters. I don't think they did. I think they saw themselves as holy warriors, instead. Maybe a global freedom from American imperialism? But that's stretching it, if you're attacking on our home turf.
Even Lilypond can't figure out good fret/string arrangement without a little help. So that's excusable. Also, I'm impressed that you have a 23rd fret.
I'm pretty sure I just got Rick-rolled.
That looked as good as any print music I've ever seen.
I recommend that you read Lilypond's essay on the topic. This is an OK start, but there is a long way to go before this is even remotely as good as professionally printed music. This is even worse than Finale scores.* I suggest you look at Noteflight or Scorch for other examples. Specifically, the noteheads are small, the stems are too long, and the whole rest should be centered in the measure. Maybe Han-Wen can give him some pointers.
* I used to hate reading Finale scores back in the 90's. That was hot shit back then, but I always found it sterile and blocky. Lifeless, boring, etc. Luckily most homebrew guys have switched to Sibelius, which is somewhat better.
I've heard people tell stories about how legislators just put their name on a bill that they haven't even read. I don't know how often this happens, but I imagine it must be more frequent now than ever. If I had sources, I'd cite them, but for now I'm just making shit up. Our representatives are almost always in campaign mode, so I have a hard time figuring out when they get time to write the hundreds of pages that are attributed to them. I've written a few technical papers and the like, and it takes me a week just to punch out a dozen pages or so. Who knows? I like to think they at least read the bills before sponsoring them.
True enough. We're just as much to blame as the guys on the Hill.
In fact, Apple appears to have copied much of the structure of the iPhone developer agreement and App Store from Microsoft XNA Creators Club and Xbox Live Indie Games.
Uh-oh. I hope they don't try to set up shop in Argentina.
Funny that they claim you retain copyright to your genetic information, just so they can claim you've given them permission to distribute it. In order for something to be copyrighted, it has to have creative content. That means you can't keep them from publishing it based on copyright law, but you can't grant permission based on copyright law either. They're trying to use this as an end-run against privacy and non-discrimination laws (HIPAA and GINA).
The service limitation clause is more of the same. They're pretending they're not providing a medical service, so they won't be held accountable. HIPAA privacy rules only apply to medical service providers. Very sneaky, these guys.
It's sad to think that people were mocking congress when they passed the genetic discrimination law. Now it appears they didn't go far enough. Maybe they should have made a genetic information protection law. The Supreme Court (or was it a federal court?) recently ruled that they can't patent genes (BRCA). So maybe there's hope.
Anybody who taught you otherwise hadn't read through the fine print in the EULA at the end of the Constitution. It's all right there.
It was my understanding that you can simulate the iPhone on your computer, but you can't actually load any program onto an iDevice without paying the developer fee ($99/yr). That's according to the Wikipedia article.
Several things here don't add up. The land area of Florida is about 50,000 sq miles. Multiply that by say, 1/16 inch, and you'd be looking at somewhere around 100 MILLION barrels of oil per day. That's more than the entire global consumption rate. There's just no way this one little hole in the ground could be doing that. The oil would have to be leaving the hole faster than 4000 miles per hour. Even if a sheen is visible at a tenth that, you're still looking at crazy high numbers.
On the other hand, the original estimate of 1,000 barrels per day simply doesn't add up with the size of the visible slick on the images you linked to. If it really is just 14kbbl spread over the 100 sq mi or so, the average film thickness would be less than 10 microns (.3 mils).
So just using some common sense estimation, I come up with somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 barrels per day. Any way you slice it, it's a terrible waste and a global tragedy. But we certainly don't need people inflating the truth just to get more hits on their blog.
He's even more wrong (or we're further from his vision) than you're letting on here. If you read the article closely, you'll see that he believed it would be possible to cram a device capable of transmitting a signal across the globe into a device the size of a watch. The devices we have that are the size of a watch can only transmit signals as far as the nearest cell tower. It looks to me like Tesla was imagining something sans infrastructure.
The first radio transmission of speech was in 1900, so perhaps Tesla wasn't trying to predict some crazy future. He probably just saw this watch radio thing as a simple scaling down of existing technology. He just had a fundamental misunderstanding of the energy densities required. On the other hand, they had radios capable of transmitting hundreds of miles that could fit into something the size of a clock by the 20's, so maybe he wasn't that far off.
On the side of wireless transmission of power, I feel sorry for him. Anybody who's played with Tesla coils and fluorescent lights knows how tantalizing the transmittal of power without wires can be. It's just a Bad Idea to have those sorts of voltage gradients randomly scattered about.
I don't think your corollary is as Kantian as you claim. Kant's point was doing something that is OK for everybody to do is OK. Privately enjoying a little good-old-fashioned-American-girl-on-girl-action would be OK if everybody did it. However, I wouldn't want my grandma to know about it. Not because she might think it's immoral, but because it might embarrass her to be aware of something like that.
Kant's teachings were more about actions based on personal thought, rather than fear of authority or shame. In fact, you could argue that his categorical imperative might occasionally be at odds with your corollary. For instance, there could be some activity that might be OK for everybody to do, so long as it is kept secret. Voting, for instance for a particular party, is something that the world would be OK if everybody did it. However, if it were not done in secret, that would not be OK, because of the external pressures easily exerted on voters in a non-secret voting system.
For example, there's a crazy urologist in Florida won't see patients who openly voted for Obama. It could just as easily be a hospital, university, or restaurant that refuses service based on other privately OK proclivities. It would be pretty hard to stay enrolled in Oral Roberts University if your secret sinful addiction to cigarettes became public.
As it relates to the Google quote, it's not about "don't put it on the Internet." With the power of Google, you don't have to put anything on the Internet. They can just store the correlation, "Oh the MAC address physically located at this address likes to surf donkey porn." Then when some politician wants to scare the public all they have to do is hack Google (China style) parse the data and show the scary color-coded map at a Republican rally. Or they can just make stuff up and claim it came from Google. I guess that would be easier. I think I need to go adjust my tinfoil hat now.
Go is simpler than checkers? Is that a joke? Have you played those two games? Go is on an entirely different plane of difficulty. It's more comparable to chess. In case you didn't know, checkers is solved.
The patent wasn't filed until 2003 (thus expiring in 2023). If they were offering it for sale in 1999, then they would have had to file the patent by 2000. Something doesn't add up.
Dangerous indeed.
Or recursion.
In the US, anyway, it is closely related to "hate crimes" which are structured in a way such that the only victims are non-whites and the only perpetrators are white males.
You are downright wrong about this. Of the 9,691 recorded hate crime victims in the US in 2008, only about half were targeted for their race. Of the racial victims, 16.8% were singled out because they were white. source
(no legislation without representation).
So people in DC aren't subject to federal laws? Cool!
Electron microscopes? You're making this way too hard on yourself. The "American byte" is right after the "evil bit" in the packet header.
You would think that life without walls would mean life without windows, too.
Uhm, what do you think a fucking diamond is?
I don't know, is that code for "engagement ring"?
It's hardly laziness that keeps people from making their own similar but free devices. It's all about the legal and financial landscape.
There are so many patent landmines that it's almost impossible to start up something innovative without running into somebody's patent on something. Companies like Apple with a large portfolio are at a distinct advantage, since they have leverage to use with other companies. The start-up has no ability to leverage their portfolio, even if they have one. If a larger company wants to infringe on a small company's patent, the smaller company will rarely have the budget for a legal team to make them stop.
Then there's the financial landscape. Right now, it's much harder than it was in the 80's and 90's to get venture capital for this sort of thing. Additionally, the cost to get into some of these markets has grown; it's in the tens of millions for consumer electronics. To make matters worse, it doesn't scale well. Most of the cost is in the research, development, and plant set-up. These costs are approximately the same whether you sell 10 units or 10,000 or 10,000,000.
One final thing, we're talking about programmers and consumers, not necessarily people with business acumen. It's not laziness, it's just not their skill set. I know a thing or two about programming. Imagine my surprise when I found out I can't just program whatever I want for my wife's iPod touch. I didn't bother starting a new company selling free iPods. It's not because I'm lazy, but because: a) I have a real job, b) it would cost way too much, c) few people would buy it, d) it's impossible to do without getting sued, and e) it's a hell of a lot easier just to put the program on a server that my wife can access on Safari on her iPod instead.