This is where you need special relativity. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light relative to anything else, regardless of what reference frame the observer is in. If each train is traveling 1/10c relative to the train below it, an observer on the ground will see the twelfth train traveling at 0.869c.
Also, due to length contraction, if the first train was long enough to reach around the globe when stationary, it will be some 200 km too short when traveling at 0.1c, each subsequent train will be shorter yet.
At the dawn of the age of automobiles, two bicycle manufacturers pioneered the concept of powered flight. Since they were unable to commercialize their tech, they shouldn't have been paid a dime.
There's one of two possible things that happened here. Either at the dawn of digital photography it was so blindingly obvious to everyone investigating the technology to put an LCD screen on the camera so that you could preview the shot you just took that no one bothered to patent it, or Kodak got there first and everyone else adopted the concept after it was unveiled.
If everyone was working on the concept around the same time as Kodak, I would think the likes of Nikon and Cannon would move to have this patent thrown out as obvious - as evidenced by their internal documentation on previewing the photo before Kodak published their patent application.
It's not clear to me that this isn't patentable. Before the digital camera you had to look through the viewfinder - there was no other way. The obvious way to design a digital camera would be with the CCD array as a drop in replacement for the film. You'd frame your shot with the viewfinder just as you always did. The relevant question is whether it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art of camera design to stick a screen where there never was one before and pipe the CCD data to it. It's not the greatest leap in the world - but it was, at one point, novel and it might not have been obvious.
The problem we have is with the benefit of hindsight, every digital camera has a screen on it, so it's not easy for us to imagine it any other way. But a digital camera could work just as well as a film point and shoot and then you'd take your memory card to the photoshop for prints rather than scrolling through them on the display. So had the preview functionality never been invented, no one would have even thought of the camera phone.
If this was a non-obvious invention, the fact that we can't imagine a present without it, it means that this was an especially important invention that deserves protection.
that article is about renting out rooms in private residences - and is in no way relevant to the discussion about whether or not businesses are allowed to hold business meetings in legitimate hotel rooms.
I'm sorry, how do you rectify this, "Gross gaming revenue — down 18 percent" with your statement that revenues are up? That's not a slow in growth, that's a decrease.
That and Vegas has one of the most depressed real estate markets in the country.
that's only true if there actually is assimilation. This is not the case in a number of situations including Australian Aborigines, Japanese Ainu, and to a slightly lesser extent, Native Americans.
Besides, we're not talking about actively killing individuals, we're talking about isolating small social groups in harsher than usual conditions, and letting them fend for themselves.
When the dominant culture is hardly changed (if at all) and the minority culture withers and dies, what is that called. Genocide is too strong a word, but assimilation isn't right either. Perhaps subsumed is better.
If we look at the roman empire, the holy roman empire, and the spread of islam, perhaps the lesson is to embrace the central tenets of the expansionists and try really, really hard to convince them that a polyglot empire is better than an ethnically homogeneous one. (call it the roll over like you've never rolled before theory of survival.)
That all may be true (and I too am a big fan of Guns, Germs and Steel) but the lesson for indigenous people from European Colonization is most certainly not "don't roll over." Native Americans fighting against the US resulted in being steamrolled. Native Americans going along to get along resulted in being steamrolled slightly more slowly.
It was lose/lose from the start. The lesson from every ethnically homogeneous expansion in history is that if you're outmatched in numbers and technology and in their way, you're screwed.
The privileged want more privilege, and they get it by taking from the already less privileged.
In Europe, the pendulum was on it's way back to (relative) equality since the feudal system collapsed (for a whole variety of reasons, severe inequality cannot be sustained in the long run.) When Europeans started establishing colonies, it was a whole new dynamic, and exploitation ruled.
If you look, you will find throughout history dominant cultures expanding and crushing native cultures (with varying degrees of success). There undoubtedly used to be hundreds, if not thousands of native European cultures, but waves of empire building and proselytizing has smoothed out all but the subtle differences. Africa was much more culturally diverse before the zulu expansion, and the han didn't always dominate interior china. As a rule, the dominant culture gets that way by eliminating or occasionally merging with competing ones, but either way no culture goes on unchanged.
History of civilization in a nutshell: 1. Identify the traits of a group different from you. 2. Deny resources to anyone with those traits. 3. Profit.
Here's the problem. There's 7 billion of us. Either we continue with industrial agriculture or three-quarters of us die. If you're intent on protecting your young you'd be better off figuring out how to make industry less destructive than trying a return to pre-industrial ways.
No I get it, and while a bit distasteful, subjecting brown people to increased security and waving grandma through even though her ticket was selected for random screening probably makes sense. (I'm reasonably sure this was happening even before the underwear bomber - prohibitions on profiling notwithstanding.) What I think the OP, and everyone who's interviewing the former head of security for El Al this week, misses is just how many brown people there are and how few of them the Israelis actually have to deal with.
TSA could wave every single white person right past the metal detectors and focus every bit of their resources on brown people, and probably wouldn't even dent the likelihood of your plane being attacked by a brown terrorist.
Incidentally, gender and age profiling would prove to be more successful than ethnic profiling.
I guess I'd argue that if the image doesn't provide sufficient information to be a privacy concern, then neither does it rise to the level to justify a warrant.
I guess the question is, what do you profile for? Richard Reid was a Britain born from a white mother and a Jamaican father. The underwear bomber was Nigerian. The 9/11 attackers were all Arabs, but nowadays you would have to look for Afghans and Pakistanis too. Everyone knows that a TSA guy can't tell a Sikh from an Arab, let alone a Pakistani, so now you're screening for everyone who looks south Asian, African, or Middle Eastern, add Asian/Pacific Islanders if your worried about Indonesian Muslims. Any idea how many interviews a day that is?
Israel can do Israeli security because they have minuscule number of passengers compared to the US.
maybe in Afghanistan that's true (probably not though) - but terrorists looking to strike in the first world have to be trusted to work independently and not draw undue suspicion, a lone 17 year old doesn't fit the bill.
(I think the profile for terrorists everywhere in the world is middle class men between 20 and 30 with the equivalent of a high school diploma - terrorists in the first world generally have more education and are even better off financially)
and even once you've solved that problem, you have to overcome difficulties of having your head whacked like a baseball by the staff of the cryogenic company.
I should add that while cosmetics may not be a particularly noble cause for justifying animal testing, neither are they on the bleeding edge of organic chemistry. They pick up chemicals developed for other purposes that may not, based on their use, have undergone the right kinds of testing needed for human consumption.
What would be nice, is a central clearing house for toxicology studies. If you want to bring a product to market, they review the product, compare it to previously conducted tests, and determine if any additional testing is warranted. You could even off-load some of the liability. That way, the cosmetic industry and the paint industry don't both have to run toxicological tests on the same surfactant. This of course will never happen because we value proprietary business information more highly than lab animal welfare.
No one wants to be the first person to put a new chemical in their eye. So some unlucky rabbit gets that dubious honor. In the cosmetic industry we either have to resign ourselves to the notion that there will never be anything new, or we have to do animal testing for every new preservative, emulsifier, or polymer. The fact of the matter is that the cosmetic manufacturers are panning on putting these chemicals in human eyes, so I stand by my statement that they're not poking puppies in the eye for no good reason. They're trying to advance the state of the art of their industry. Nine times out of ten, there is no adverse reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, back to physics 102.
This is where you need special relativity. Nothing can move faster than the speed of light relative to anything else, regardless of what reference frame the observer is in. If each train is traveling 1/10c relative to the train below it, an observer on the ground will see the twelfth train traveling at 0.869c.
Also, due to length contraction, if the first train was long enough to reach around the globe when stationary, it will be some 200 km too short when traveling at 0.1c, each subsequent train will be shorter yet.
At the dawn of the age of automobiles, two bicycle manufacturers pioneered the concept of powered flight. Since they were unable to commercialize their tech, they shouldn't have been paid a dime.
There's one of two possible things that happened here. Either at the dawn of digital photography it was so blindingly obvious to everyone investigating the technology to put an LCD screen on the camera so that you could preview the shot you just took that no one bothered to patent it, or Kodak got there first and everyone else adopted the concept after it was unveiled.
If everyone was working on the concept around the same time as Kodak, I would think the likes of Nikon and Cannon would move to have this patent thrown out as obvious - as evidenced by their internal documentation on previewing the photo before Kodak published their patent application.
It's not clear to me that this isn't patentable. Before the digital camera you had to look through the viewfinder - there was no other way. The obvious way to design a digital camera would be with the CCD array as a drop in replacement for the film. You'd frame your shot with the viewfinder just as you always did. The relevant question is whether it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art of camera design to stick a screen where there never was one before and pipe the CCD data to it. It's not the greatest leap in the world - but it was, at one point, novel and it might not have been obvious.
The problem we have is with the benefit of hindsight, every digital camera has a screen on it, so it's not easy for us to imagine it any other way. But a digital camera could work just as well as a film point and shoot and then you'd take your memory card to the photoshop for prints rather than scrolling through them on the display. So had the preview functionality never been invented, no one would have even thought of the camera phone.
If this was a non-obvious invention, the fact that we can't imagine a present without it, it means that this was an especially important invention that deserves protection.
that article is about renting out rooms in private residences - and is in no way relevant to the discussion about whether or not businesses are allowed to hold business meetings in legitimate hotel rooms.
I'm sorry, how do you rectify this, "Gross gaming revenue — down 18 percent" with your statement that revenues are up? That's not a slow in growth, that's a decrease.
That and Vegas has one of the most depressed real estate markets in the country.
that's only true if there actually is assimilation. This is not the case in a number of situations including Australian Aborigines, Japanese Ainu, and to a slightly lesser extent, Native Americans.
Besides, we're not talking about actively killing individuals, we're talking about isolating small social groups in harsher than usual conditions, and letting them fend for themselves.
When the dominant culture is hardly changed (if at all) and the minority culture withers and dies, what is that called. Genocide is too strong a word, but assimilation isn't right either. Perhaps subsumed is better.
thinking a little more about this.
If we look at the roman empire, the holy roman empire, and the spread of islam, perhaps the lesson is to embrace the central tenets of the expansionists and try really, really hard to convince them that a polyglot empire is better than an ethnically homogeneous one. (call it the roll over like you've never rolled before theory of survival.)
That all may be true (and I too am a big fan of Guns, Germs and Steel) but the lesson for indigenous people from European Colonization is most certainly not "don't roll over." Native Americans fighting against the US resulted in being steamrolled. Native Americans going along to get along resulted in being steamrolled slightly more slowly.
It was lose/lose from the start. The lesson from every ethnically homogeneous expansion in history is that if you're outmatched in numbers and technology and in their way, you're screwed.
If a dominant culture kills a minority culture, what do you call it?
I tend to agree that it's not conscious or systemic (at least not anymore), and possibly not even intentional. Genocide may be the best word we have.
They must not have been british movies.
It's not a european trait, it's a human trait.
The privileged want more privilege, and they get it by taking from the already less privileged.
In Europe, the pendulum was on it's way back to (relative) equality since the feudal system collapsed (for a whole variety of reasons, severe inequality cannot be sustained in the long run.) When Europeans started establishing colonies, it was a whole new dynamic, and exploitation ruled.
If you look, you will find throughout history dominant cultures expanding and crushing native cultures (with varying degrees of success). There undoubtedly used to be hundreds, if not thousands of native European cultures, but waves of empire building and proselytizing has smoothed out all but the subtle differences. Africa was much more culturally diverse before the zulu expansion, and the han didn't always dominate interior china. As a rule, the dominant culture gets that way by eliminating or occasionally merging with competing ones, but either way no culture goes on unchanged.
History of civilization in a nutshell:
1. Identify the traits of a group different from you.
2. Deny resources to anyone with those traits.
3. Profit.
roll over my ass.
If there's a lesson, it's don't be susceptible to non-indigenous diseases, and don't be massively out-gunned.
Or, to put it another way, be born lucky.
Here's the problem. There's 7 billion of us. Either we continue with industrial agriculture or three-quarters of us die. If you're intent on protecting your young you'd be better off figuring out how to make industry less destructive than trying a return to pre-industrial ways.
No I get it, and while a bit distasteful, subjecting brown people to increased security and waving grandma through even though her ticket was selected for random screening probably makes sense. (I'm reasonably sure this was happening even before the underwear bomber - prohibitions on profiling notwithstanding.) What I think the OP, and everyone who's interviewing the former head of security for El Al this week, misses is just how many brown people there are and how few of them the Israelis actually have to deal with.
TSA could wave every single white person right past the metal detectors and focus every bit of their resources on brown people, and probably wouldn't even dent the likelihood of your plane being attacked by a brown terrorist.
Incidentally, gender and age profiling would prove to be more successful than ethnic profiling.
I guess I'd argue that if the image doesn't provide sufficient information to be a privacy concern, then neither does it rise to the level to justify a warrant.
is it possible? maybe, is it better and cheaper to just buy an imager from FLIR? Yes.
I guess the question is, what do you profile for? Richard Reid was a Britain born from a white mother and a Jamaican father. The underwear bomber was Nigerian. The 9/11 attackers were all Arabs, but nowadays you would have to look for Afghans and Pakistanis too. Everyone knows that a TSA guy can't tell a Sikh from an Arab, let alone a Pakistani, so now you're screening for everyone who looks south Asian, African, or Middle Eastern, add Asian/Pacific Islanders if your worried about Indonesian Muslims. Any idea how many interviews a day that is?
Israel can do Israeli security because they have minuscule number of passengers compared to the US.
maybe in Afghanistan that's true (probably not though) - but terrorists looking to strike in the first world have to be trusted to work independently and not draw undue suspicion, a lone 17 year old doesn't fit the bill.
(I think the profile for terrorists everywhere in the world is middle class men between 20 and 30 with the equivalent of a high school diploma - terrorists in the first world generally have more education and are even better off financially)
maybe we could put some kind of death panel in place to streamline the process.
and even once you've solved that problem, you have to overcome difficulties of having your head whacked like a baseball by the staff of the cryogenic company.
then there's boxer engines, rotary engines, and even rotary piston engines.
That would be volkswagen's VR engines.
I should add that while cosmetics may not be a particularly noble cause for justifying animal testing, neither are they on the bleeding edge of organic chemistry. They pick up chemicals developed for other purposes that may not, based on their use, have undergone the right kinds of testing needed for human consumption.
What would be nice, is a central clearing house for toxicology studies. If you want to bring a product to market, they review the product, compare it to previously conducted tests, and determine if any additional testing is warranted. You could even off-load some of the liability. That way, the cosmetic industry and the paint industry don't both have to run toxicological tests on the same surfactant. This of course will never happen because we value proprietary business information more highly than lab animal welfare.
No one wants to be the first person to put a new chemical in their eye. So some unlucky rabbit gets that dubious honor. In the cosmetic industry we either have to resign ourselves to the notion that there will never be anything new, or we have to do animal testing for every new preservative, emulsifier, or polymer. The fact of the matter is that the cosmetic manufacturers are panning on putting these chemicals in human eyes, so I stand by my statement that they're not poking puppies in the eye for no good reason. They're trying to advance the state of the art of their industry. Nine times out of ten, there is no adverse reaction.