Or would you turn round and say "This guy's nuts, this is just plain dangerous and insane" and request that the cops do something? [I] Know what I'd do.. Request that this loon reap the consequences of their actions (speech is an action).
Yes, you'd be afraid. Is the government's job to make sure that nobody scares you? Gosh, you must be fun around hallowe'en.
So this guy climbs up on his soapbox and says, "R3dM3rcury is the problem! Let's all go burn down his house with him inside it!" and nothing happens. Then the consequences of his actions are...nothing but looking like a loon. If people grab their pitchforks and torches and go burn down my house, then the consequences are, of course, that I die and the people who killed me go to jail for a long period of time.
Of course, I'm dead. I would certainly argue that this is not a beneficial outcome--I'd rather not be dead. But do we throw out all we believe in order to protect the life of one individual?
This stuff just doesn't matter. You guys are always here, bringing up this stuff that doesn't matter. [...] You would think by now you would be willing to admit the thing has been rejected by the market and move on.
Whenever anybody brings up "the market," I always think:
EAT SHIT: 10,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
As always, remember that McDonalds makes the most popular hamburgers. Britney Spears was, at one point, the most popular singer. Does this mean that "the market" has rejected other hamburger joints or other singers?
There are lots of reasons for something to become popular.
Now, I've never used a Windows Phone 7. I have an iPhone 3GS and will probably get the next generation iPhone when it comes out. But to say that the current interface model used in iOS and Android is the best because "the market has accepted it" is ridiculous. What Microsoft is doing is definitely interesting and is more focused around information than it is around brands--which is essentially what apps are. Yelp, Facebook, Flickr, GetGlue--they're all brands. The home screen of my iPhone ends up looking like a NASCAR competitor, rather than actually having information that might be useful to me like whether or not the weather will be decent tomorrow or if my friend has gotten back to me about dinner tonight.
As a Mac user, I can tell you that just because something is overwhelmingly accepted by "the market" doesn't mean it's the best, nor that something that is ignored by "the market" doesn't necessarily have benefits.
Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.
I'm not sure I'd look at it that way.
I don't see any reason for the US Taxpayer to fund research and development of rockets that will transport people from the ground to LEO. We've spent 50 years doing that. I think that technology can easily be distributed to the private sector and let them compete with each other. It lowers the cost of getting into LEO and the ISS. That's a good thing.
Remember that part of the legacy of the Space Shuttle was that it was going to carry commercial and government payloads into space. This set back commercial space development in the US because no matter how cheap they made it, NASA could go lower.
So commercialization will lower the cost to get into space. But you still need a government to do the exploring once you get there.
Most manufacturers only have two buck Chuck lying around. Apple only has some $300/bottle vintage stuff.
The problem is, Apple has decided that's wine is worth $300 a bottle. In fact, it's also a bottle of two-buck Chuck.
To go back to the car analogy, I have a 1976 Toyota Corolla that I'm willing to sell for $1,000,000. Now as much as I might believe that's the value of the car, I doubt I'm going to have too many takers. Does that mean I have a car worth $1,000,000?
Samsung is asking for IP which Apple values in the billions (i.e., the rights to make iPad copies) in exchange for a license to technology which Samsung previously agreed to offer under F/RAND terms as part of an industry standard, Apple wants to pay the same in absolute value as the other licensees.
Yes. But now we have to discuss what is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
Samsung has these patents. Motorola uses them. Motorola has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, to use your example, $10 Million. They also pay Samsung $1 for each phone that they sell which uses those patents. Nokia uses these patents and has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, say, $9 Million. They also pay Samsung $2 for every phone they sell which uses those patents. HTC uses these patents and has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, say, $5 Million. They also pay Samsung $5 for every phone they sell. Now Apple is coming along and saying, "Hey, we're not going to cross-license any patents and we want these patents at $1 per phone." Every other phone manufacturer has cross-licensed IP worth millions to get their deals. If Apple doesn't do the same, they have to offer something of equal value. That's non-discriminatory. Because companies are already licensing Samsung's technology, the market has determined what is fair and reasonable.
By the way, what Apple values these patents at doesn't mean squat. The value of these patents is what they can get for them in trade. For example, I write a song. I believe it is the most beautiful song in the world and I will be glad to sell you a copy of this song for $1,000,000. That's what I consider the value of this song to be. Of course, if no one buys the song for $1,000,000, it doesn't really matter what I think the value is--it's value is exactly zero.
Apple can sit on these patents and say, "No. We think these are too valuable." That's certainly their right. But they can't complain when the market has set the value of Samsung's patents--based upon their deals with other companies--and Apple doesn't want to pay that much.
I imagine there are people out there who would be interested, but don't want to give out personal information. [...] This is one place where targeted advertising would be great--I specifically signed up to receive ads! Instead, I got an ad for pole dancing. As a male, I was not very intrigued.
So you don't tell the system that you're male (personal information) and then you're annoyed because you see ads that don't make sense to you?
Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
True. But if everyone has chosen cross-licensing agreements except Apple, how much are those cross-licensing agreements worth to Samsung? Shouldn't they be able to extract the equivalent value of those cross-licensing agreements?
For example, if you're selling your old car for $2000, isn't it fair and reasonable to at least expect $2000 worth of beer?
Consider the "installer." You bring your fancy new computer home, turn it on, and it starts up the setup program. It asks you to make an administrator account. It then says, "Great! You're now ready to use your brand new computer!"
Nothing mentioned about setting up a second account for regular use or anything like that.
If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)?
Blown up during World War III, obviously.
Actually, as I understand it, you don't see any Chinese people in Star Trek: TOS because, according to David Gerrold, NBC had a policy against hiring Chinese actors.
I was going to say the same thing. In their defense, though, San Francisco isn't a mecca of sunshine either. Lots of grey days, even when the rest of the Bay Area is basking in sunshine.
Years ago, my optometrist had a parrot that they kept in the office. Eventually, the parrot learned how to simulate the FAX machine and appeared to have great fun making the silly humans run over to the FAX machine when nothing was there.
So you'll be wandering through the jungle and suddenly hear a FAX machine...
I'm a Mac guy, but I know a few Windows users. When I watch them work, I notice that the application window that they are using alway fills the screen. When they need to switch between two windows that they created, they use the task bar at the bottom of the screen. On the Mac side, I see plenty of users who get very confused when they click out of their non-full screen windows by accident (like missing the scroll bar) and suddenly they're looking at the Finder and wondering what happened.
So, yeah, I think there's a sizable number of people who are fine with the idea that they start up their desktop systems and their 21" screen has a bunch of Tiles with information about how many e-mails they have and what web pages they look at have recently updated.
I always wondered, how do lie detectors separate liars from awkward people?
They don't. They are designed to detect "reactions" which may be due to feeling guilty about something.
I took a lie detector test once when I was in High School. I was taking a "Behavioral Science" class and, one day, the police showed up to talk to us about "lie detectors" and how they work. One of the things he explained was that it doesn't really detect lies. It detects a reaction to a question. A skilled officer can use this information to consider areas of questioning that may lead to information.
After the end of the talk, the officer asked, "Does anyone want to take a lie detector test?" I raised my hand, as did about half the kids in the auditorium. The officer said, "Okay, how many of you have driver's licenses." A bunch of hands went down. "How many of you have driver's licenses with you?" And I was the last man standing.
So I went up on stage in the auditorium and they hooked up various things to measure my breathing and heart rate and such. He told me to tell the truth. And then he started in with his questions. "Is it true your name is John Smith?" "No," I replied. He makes a few marks on the paper showing my heart rate and breathing and such. "Is it true you're 17 years old?" "Yes" and a few more marks. He asks a few innocuous questions and I answer them, each time him making little marks on the paper coming out of the machine. Then he asks the big question:
"Have you ever driven over the speed of 55 miles per hour?"
Flashback! The previous night I had been out with some friends. I had an 11 o'clock curfew but had lost track of time. It was a little before 11 o'clock when I realized the time. I called my folks and told them that I was running late and they told me I had to get my butt home before 11. The race was on.
I jumped in the car and started off. I hit I-91 and punched the gas, hitting about 80 MPH. When I got off the highway, I was doing about 60 down rural roads where the speed limit was about 40 MPH. I made it home right around 11 o'clock, meaning I wouldn't be grounded or anything. But I knew I'd done a stupid thing and could have gotten in to worse trouble if a cop had caught me. Fortunately, I hadn't gotten caught.
So, as we return the present, here is a law enforcement officer asking me if I had ever driven above the speed limit. Do I lie? Do I tell the truth!? He told me to tell the truth! It's not like he could give me a ticket, could he?!
"Yes."
Okay, I told the truth. What's his next question going to be? Is he going to ask if I've ever driven over the speed of 75 MPH?! What do I do, what do I do?!?
He asked a few more innocuous questions and then said, "Let's look at the results. Here's where I asked you about your name, here's where I asked you about your age. Here's where I asked you abou speeding. Your heart rate went way up! And, look, you stopped breathing! You didn't really start breathing normally for another 30 or 40 seconds after that question. This is the best reaction I've seen a long time!"
Now, does the reaction show that I was lying? No, because I didn't lie. But my reaction could have been due to other reasons. Perhaps I lost a loved one to an accident due to a speeder and I'm incensed that the police could be asking me such a question. Now, again, a skilled officer would ask more questions in order to try to figure out what provoked such a reaction as the one I gave versus just asking a few more innocuous questions and calling it quits.
So, no, the lie detector doesn't show lies. It shows reactions to questions. These reactions could be due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the idea that you might end up in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
Actually, there have been some breakthroughs in the last several years regarding measuring the movement of stars which appears to be how they found these planets.
Keep in mind that they found 50 planets orbiting nearby Sun-like stars. 16 of these are considered "super Earths" in that they may be rocky planets like ours. Two of these planets may orbit in what we consider the "habitable" zone which means there may be liquid water which we figure is necessary for life. Of course, even if they're Earth-sized, they could be planets like Venus (which I believe is considered to be in the habitable zone) which are still too hot for liquid water. They may just be lumps of rock with no atmosphere because they have no magnetic field to protect the planet. They may have no moon, which we think might have helped life along around here.
In short, I think you're a bit premature wondering what they do if they discover planets with life. They won't even be able to consider whether or not the planets are even really Earth-like for another 5 years.
Obviously, if someone had been carrying their GPS Map device, they'd've been able to find their way out. I wonder, though, about your typical smart phone. Many mapping applications nowadays use the Internet. No Internet, no map. I would--perhaps rashly--tend to doubt they had cellphone coverage where they crashed. So while they might be able to figure that they were 34.765 degrees South and 70.286389 degrees West, that might not have been much help without appropriate maps showing latitude and longitude. I would assume that planes have those (of course, nowadays they want to put that on an iPad which may not be the best of ideas...)
Also, most phones have AGPS--Assisted GPS. I don't know how well they work without a reasonable cellular network behind them. The closest example I can give is my folk's place in Vermont, which doesn't have decent cellphone coverage. The map application on my iPhone tends to be off by miles and, occasionally, tens of miles. Of course, the issue there is that they live in a place where the only "clear" sky they have is to the south. North, west, and east are blocked by hills. That might explain the issues of GPS accuracy if it can't get a signal from the satellites because the hills block them. This probably wouldn't be an issue where the survivors were, so they might be able to get a good fix from the GPS satellites.
The only other issue that comes to mind is the extreme cold. As I understand it, batteries don't really like the cold and that might affect how long your typical garden-variety smartphone would work.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew this would be in here somewhere...
Or would you turn round and say "This guy's nuts, this is just plain dangerous and insane" and request that the cops do something? [I] Know what I'd do.. Request that this loon reap the consequences of their actions (speech is an action).
Yes, you'd be afraid. Is the government's job to make sure that nobody scares you? Gosh, you must be fun around hallowe'en.
So this guy climbs up on his soapbox and says, "R3dM3rcury is the problem! Let's all go burn down his house with him inside it!" and nothing happens. Then the consequences of his actions are...nothing but looking like a loon. If people grab their pitchforks and torches and go burn down my house, then the consequences are, of course, that I die and the people who killed me go to jail for a long period of time.
Of course, I'm dead. I would certainly argue that this is not a beneficial outcome--I'd rather not be dead. But do we throw out all we believe in order to protect the life of one individual?
Yup. But the individual links work (ie, http://www.apple.com/iphone/)
When I go to http://www.apple.com/, I get an "Access Denied" message. It works if I go to http://www.apple.com/iphone/, though.
Or the somewhat more explained rise of Taco Bell to rule over the restaurant industry.
Only in the US. Elsewhere, it was Pizza Hut.
This stuff just doesn't matter. You guys are always here, bringing up this stuff that doesn't matter. [...] You would think by now you would be willing to admit the thing has been rejected by the market and move on.
Whenever anybody brings up "the market," I always think:
EAT SHIT: 10,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
As always, remember that McDonalds makes the most popular hamburgers. Britney Spears was, at one point, the most popular singer. Does this mean that "the market" has rejected other hamburger joints or other singers?
There are lots of reasons for something to become popular.
Now, I've never used a Windows Phone 7. I have an iPhone 3GS and will probably get the next generation iPhone when it comes out. But to say that the current interface model used in iOS and Android is the best because "the market has accepted it" is ridiculous. What Microsoft is doing is definitely interesting and is more focused around information than it is around brands--which is essentially what apps are. Yelp, Facebook, Flickr, GetGlue--they're all brands. The home screen of my iPhone ends up looking like a NASCAR competitor, rather than actually having information that might be useful to me like whether or not the weather will be decent tomorrow or if my friend has gotten back to me about dinner tonight.
As a Mac user, I can tell you that just because something is overwhelmingly accepted by "the market" doesn't mean it's the best, nor that something that is ignored by "the market" doesn't necessarily have benefits.
Their new goal is to let Commercialization take to cost to explore space for profit. Once it happens they plan to jump on as customers.
I'm not sure I'd look at it that way.
I don't see any reason for the US Taxpayer to fund research and development of rockets that will transport people from the ground to LEO. We've spent 50 years doing that. I think that technology can easily be distributed to the private sector and let them compete with each other. It lowers the cost of getting into LEO and the ISS. That's a good thing.
Remember that part of the legacy of the Space Shuttle was that it was going to carry commercial and government payloads into space. This set back commercial space development in the US because no matter how cheap they made it, NASA could go lower.
So commercialization will lower the cost to get into space. But you still need a government to do the exploring once you get there.
Heck, my TV comes with Amazon's Streaming Video service.
Most manufacturers only have two buck Chuck lying around. Apple only has some $300/bottle vintage stuff.
The problem is, Apple has decided that's wine is worth $300 a bottle. In fact, it's also a bottle of two-buck Chuck.
To go back to the car analogy, I have a 1976 Toyota Corolla that I'm willing to sell for $1,000,000. Now as much as I might believe that's the value of the car, I doubt I'm going to have too many takers. Does that mean I have a car worth $1,000,000?
Samsung is asking for IP which Apple values in the billions (i.e., the rights to make iPad copies) in exchange for a license to technology which Samsung previously agreed to offer under F/RAND terms as part of an industry standard, Apple wants to pay the same in absolute value as the other licensees.
Yes. But now we have to discuss what is fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.
Samsung has these patents. Motorola uses them. Motorola has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, to use your example, $10 Million. They also pay Samsung $1 for each phone that they sell which uses those patents. Nokia uses these patents and has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, say, $9 Million. They also pay Samsung $2 for every phone they sell which uses those patents. HTC uses these patents and has cross-licensed IP with Samsung worth, say, $5 Million. They also pay Samsung $5 for every phone they sell. Now Apple is coming along and saying, "Hey, we're not going to cross-license any patents and we want these patents at $1 per phone." Every other phone manufacturer has cross-licensed IP worth millions to get their deals. If Apple doesn't do the same, they have to offer something of equal value. That's non-discriminatory. Because companies are already licensing Samsung's technology, the market has determined what is fair and reasonable.
By the way, what Apple values these patents at doesn't mean squat. The value of these patents is what they can get for them in trade. For example, I write a song. I believe it is the most beautiful song in the world and I will be glad to sell you a copy of this song for $1,000,000. That's what I consider the value of this song to be. Of course, if no one buys the song for $1,000,000, it doesn't really matter what I think the value is--it's value is exactly zero.
Apple can sit on these patents and say, "No. We think these are too valuable." That's certainly their right. But they can't complain when the market has set the value of Samsung's patents--based upon their deals with other companies--and Apple doesn't want to pay that much.
I imagine there are people out there who would be interested, but don't want to give out personal information. [...] This is one place where targeted advertising would be great--I specifically signed up to receive ads! Instead, I got an ad for pole dancing. As a male, I was not very intrigued.
So you don't tell the system that you're male (personal information) and then you're annoyed because you see ads that don't make sense to you?
Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
True. But if everyone has chosen cross-licensing agreements except Apple, how much are those cross-licensing agreements worth to Samsung? Shouldn't they be able to extract the equivalent value of those cross-licensing agreements?
For example, if you're selling your old car for $2000, isn't it fair and reasonable to at least expect $2000 worth of beer?
Perhaps Network 23 is testing their Blipverts again...
SHE'S A WITCH! BURN HER!
For the account stuff, you might have a point.
He definitely has a point.
Consider the "installer." You bring your fancy new computer home, turn it on, and it starts up the setup program. It asks you to make an administrator account. It then says, "Great! You're now ready to use your brand new computer!"
Nothing mentioned about setting up a second account for regular use or anything like that.
If everything's so egalitarian and racism is a thing of the past, then where are all the Chinese people (1\4 of the world's population)?
Blown up during World War III, obviously.
Actually, as I understand it, you don't see any Chinese people in Star Trek: TOS because, according to David Gerrold, NBC had a policy against hiring Chinese actors.
I was going to say the same thing. In their defense, though, San Francisco isn't a mecca of sunshine either. Lots of grey days, even when the rest of the Bay Area is basking in sunshine.
the Coast Guard branch of the DoD could do this.
Except the Coast Guard is a branch of the DoT. But that actually makes more sense...
Years ago, my optometrist had a parrot that they kept in the office. Eventually, the parrot learned how to simulate the FAX machine and appeared to have great fun making the silly humans run over to the FAX machine when nothing was there.
So you'll be wandering through the jungle and suddenly hear a FAX machine...
Maybe they did.
I'm a Mac guy, but I know a few Windows users. When I watch them work, I notice that the application window that they are using alway fills the screen. When they need to switch between two windows that they created, they use the task bar at the bottom of the screen. On the Mac side, I see plenty of users who get very confused when they click out of their non-full screen windows by accident (like missing the scroll bar) and suddenly they're looking at the Finder and wondering what happened.
So, yeah, I think there's a sizable number of people who are fine with the idea that they start up their desktop systems and their 21" screen has a bunch of Tiles with information about how many e-mails they have and what web pages they look at have recently updated.
I always wondered, how do lie detectors separate liars from awkward people?
They don't. They are designed to detect "reactions" which may be due to feeling guilty about something.
I took a lie detector test once when I was in High School. I was taking a "Behavioral Science" class and, one day, the police showed up to talk to us about "lie detectors" and how they work. One of the things he explained was that it doesn't really detect lies. It detects a reaction to a question. A skilled officer can use this information to consider areas of questioning that may lead to information.
After the end of the talk, the officer asked, "Does anyone want to take a lie detector test?" I raised my hand, as did about half the kids in the auditorium. The officer said, "Okay, how many of you have driver's licenses." A bunch of hands went down. "How many of you have driver's licenses with you?" And I was the last man standing.
So I went up on stage in the auditorium and they hooked up various things to measure my breathing and heart rate and such. He told me to tell the truth. And then he started in with his questions. "Is it true your name is John Smith?" "No," I replied. He makes a few marks on the paper showing my heart rate and breathing and such. "Is it true you're 17 years old?" "Yes" and a few more marks. He asks a few innocuous questions and I answer them, each time him making little marks on the paper coming out of the machine. Then he asks the big question:
"Have you ever driven over the speed of 55 miles per hour?"
Flashback! The previous night I had been out with some friends. I had an 11 o'clock curfew but had lost track of time. It was a little before 11 o'clock when I realized the time. I called my folks and told them that I was running late and they told me I had to get my butt home before 11. The race was on.
I jumped in the car and started off. I hit I-91 and punched the gas, hitting about 80 MPH. When I got off the highway, I was doing about 60 down rural roads where the speed limit was about 40 MPH. I made it home right around 11 o'clock, meaning I wouldn't be grounded or anything. But I knew I'd done a stupid thing and could have gotten in to worse trouble if a cop had caught me. Fortunately, I hadn't gotten caught.
So, as we return the present, here is a law enforcement officer asking me if I had ever driven above the speed limit. Do I lie? Do I tell the truth!? He told me to tell the truth! It's not like he could give me a ticket, could he?!
"Yes."
Okay, I told the truth. What's his next question going to be? Is he going to ask if I've ever driven over the speed of 75 MPH?! What do I do, what do I do?!?
He asked a few more innocuous questions and then said, "Let's look at the results. Here's where I asked you about your name, here's where I asked you about your age. Here's where I asked you abou speeding. Your heart rate went way up! And, look, you stopped breathing! You didn't really start breathing normally for another 30 or 40 seconds after that question. This is the best reaction I've seen a long time!"
Now, does the reaction show that I was lying? No, because I didn't lie. But my reaction could have been due to other reasons. Perhaps I lost a loved one to an accident due to a speeder and I'm incensed that the police could be asking me such a question. Now, again, a skilled officer would ask more questions in order to try to figure out what provoked such a reaction as the one I gave versus just asking a few more innocuous questions and calling it quits.
So, no, the lie detector doesn't show lies. It shows reactions to questions. These reactions could be due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the idea that you might end up in jail for a crime you didn't commit.
Actually, there have been some breakthroughs in the last several years regarding measuring the movement of stars which appears to be how they found these planets.
Keep in mind that they found 50 planets orbiting nearby Sun-like stars. 16 of these are considered "super Earths" in that they may be rocky planets like ours. Two of these planets may orbit in what we consider the "habitable" zone which means there may be liquid water which we figure is necessary for life. Of course, even if they're Earth-sized, they could be planets like Venus (which I believe is considered to be in the habitable zone) which are still too hot for liquid water. They may just be lumps of rock with no atmosphere because they have no magnetic field to protect the planet. They may have no moon, which we think might have helped life along around here.
In short, I think you're a bit premature wondering what they do if they discover planets with life. They won't even be able to consider whether or not the planets are even really Earth-like for another 5 years.
Is it so hard to download the offline maps for Openstreetmap?
Nope. But I don't imagine that most airline passengers actually do this before they fly.
The whole planet might take 9gig + but thats nothing on a 64gig iphone
Pity they don't make one of those--highest is 32GB.
Obviously, if someone had been carrying their GPS Map device, they'd've been able to find their way out. I wonder, though, about your typical smart phone. Many mapping applications nowadays use the Internet. No Internet, no map. I would--perhaps rashly--tend to doubt they had cellphone coverage where they crashed. So while they might be able to figure that they were 34.765 degrees South and 70.286389 degrees West, that might not have been much help without appropriate maps showing latitude and longitude. I would assume that planes have those (of course, nowadays they want to put that on an iPad which may not be the best of ideas...)
Also, most phones have AGPS--Assisted GPS. I don't know how well they work without a reasonable cellular network behind them. The closest example I can give is my folk's place in Vermont, which doesn't have decent cellphone coverage. The map application on my iPhone tends to be off by miles and, occasionally, tens of miles. Of course, the issue there is that they live in a place where the only "clear" sky they have is to the south. North, west, and east are blocked by hills. That might explain the issues of GPS accuracy if it can't get a signal from the satellites because the hills block them. This probably wouldn't be an issue where the survivors were, so they might be able to get a good fix from the GPS satellites.
The only other issue that comes to mind is the extreme cold. As I understand it, batteries don't really like the cold and that might affect how long your typical garden-variety smartphone would work.
Martinez said hackers are often members of sophisticated criminal networks [...]
He also added that "Hackers are a grave threat to the national security and that they need more funding..."