Well your first mistake is the term "materialistic western science". There is no other "science". Science is development of knowledge based on empirical evidence. Everything else is religion, fantasy or just plain bullshit. Science starts with nothing and develops theories around observations.
So as long as nobody can define what "spiritual experiences" actually are and how they differ from the common hallucinations and fantasies of the human mind they don't really exist as a valid phenomenon.
When I go to a restaurant I pay for a meal. If I don't I'm taking up space. They'll throw me out even if I don't take anything along. When I go to the cinema I go there to watch a movie and have already payed for an expensive ticket.
Should a hotel confiscate your phone on the grounds that you're less likely to use the pricey hotel phone and WiFi services? Should airlines confiscate iPods and the like because they want to force you to pay for in-flight entertainment?
As long as I can't see into the finances of large multiplex cinemas I'm going to call bullshit. It certainly contradicts observations.
Despite the expensive beverages, ticket prices are far from low. They're absolutely horrendous. I know of places where within the last five years multiplex cinemas have driven smaller theaters out of business and the ticket prices have since doubled.
They say they need the drinks to stay in business, but if they can't make a profit on their main product, which is showing movies, then good riddance. Should we allow ourselves to be screwed just because some jackass scaremonger lies about how it'll drive him out of business and cost jobs?
But that's the latest trend, as exemplified by this story. Prisons is out of fashion so the justice system is coming up with new and crazy ideas. They may not understand what they're talking about, but when has that ever stopped them?
This is what happens when you allow service and goods providers to dictate the usage and buying of customers. Theaters don't allow you to take in anything other than food and drinks bought from them. There aren't that many theaters around that you could say it's the consumers choice. They should just make it illegal for theaters to stop people eating their own food and the problem would be solved.
Elan make products of their own and therefore can't be described as patent trolls. Patents are also rarely used immediately after a product is released.
Um, yes they have. Their first priority was to apply DRM to the metadata, but they requested OFCOM to review whether encryption should be allowed. Read their original request.
While it first did indeed look as if OFCOM would stop the BBC's treacherous plans, they have since softened and it currently looks as if DRM is well on it's way. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/09/ofcom
and they can't because it would break millions of deployed set-top boxes.
The BBC has a few sneaky tricks up their sleeve for that. They would start by applying it to all HD channels. And then they'll do what they did to encourage people to switch to digital receivers in the first place: launch new channels and water down your previous service so much that everyone upgrades. As long as they still show the news they're still doing their job right?
Maybe: http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/nintendos-iwata-muses-about-kindle-like-business-model-for-futu/ Nintendo was able to secure free WiFi for a lot of major network operators in Europe. If they include a tranceiver for downloading games then using the built in microphone to make phone calls should be trivial. Don't get your hopes up though, I can imagine Nintendo acting very conservatively here.
The definitons aren't defined properly. Our perception of depth is based on stereo vision, you stereoscopic images are a pretty perfect representation, at least for a fixed view.
For a perfect representation from every view you of course need to recreate the complete vector field of photons, which is pretty inconceivable.
A lot of people like to talk about two technologies: Hologrophy and Volumetric displays.
But Hologrophy is also incomplete: It completely lacks perspective. Holograms are made at one viewing distance. But if you move away from the hologram the perspective doesn't change. Foreground objects have the same proportions to background objects as seen when close up.
While volumetric displays can show perspective, it's a completely inadequate experience for movies and most games. It would be like watching toys battle it out on your desk. No need for surround sound, that's for sure. Although it would be cool for strategy games and visualisation. But that's even assuming it's physically possible. Nobody has figured out how to create and opaque image in thin air. (thin air is indeed necessary, you don't want the index of your medium distorting your image)
It's not just a few joints here and there. Anyone can pick up carpenters tools and make some reasonable cuts with a bit of practice. But all the different techniques and know-how that goes into all those little drawers and supports is indeed a lot of work.
You sound like you already have some experience making your own furniture, so you probably have some of the basics under your belt. But to someone who has close to no experience working with wood every step of the way will be challenge and deliver unsatisfactory results.
And that's assuming you have the plans to build it in the first place.
For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.
Swoosh....
I think the trick here is that he's presenting his reasoning for why he votes with his wallet in the hopes that he will change people's viewpoint.
That's the whole point of the matter. People are sick and tired of responses to statements such as
"I think Apple' policy is concerning because of this and this."
being
"Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it so you're not entitled to an opinion here"
but by the time the court ruled, Linux already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was not far behind.
OSX wouldn't run on X86 processors for another five years. And as long as Apple ties you to their machine, I don't think we can ever consider OSX a competitor to other "normal" OSs. I think you're confused about the meaning of the word monopoly. Monopoly doesn't mean that there are no alternatives anywhere. It can also be specific to certain parts of ressources in the market.
Aside from that, 'the court' didn't 'rule' that Microsoft is a monopoly, that's just a word they used. The *ruled* that they were guilty of violating antitrust laws, which get more specific.
Apple had the chance to hold on to proprietary DRM for all music sales, and openly called for that protection to be dropped. And now it is gone.
Actually that came as a direct response to a request by the EC for Apple to allow other devices to play their files and other store to be able to use Fairplay. For Apple this was the only reason they wanted the DRM anyway.
This whole "if you don't like it that's your opinion" crap is getting ridiculous. Yes, we realize that products are made for diverse markets, and people have different priorities. But if we can't call bullshit when we see it what's the point of having a forum of discussion.
Back to the topic: The iPad is a nice device. But there are a lot of things inherently wrong with it. And I find it worrying that Apple, otherwise often a pioneer in technology is capable of ruining an otherwise good device and wants to severely restrict what I do with it. I think there's something very wrong with that. Even if I'd never contemplate buying an iPad.
Blood donation is about saving people's lives, not politically correct bullshit or opposing 'prevalent' views. It's also a bit of a push calling it discrimination. It isn't anybody's *right* to have their blood taken and nobody is required to accept a donation. And the simple fact of the matter is that certain groups have higher risks than others. Most of them are far lower risk than homosexual men by the way.
They don't. At least in most major western countries. In most cases Hospitals actually lose out when organs are donated. It's a fairly difficult operation and takes up a good amount of resources. It's a very expensive procedure and the reimbursement they receive for it is often very lean. Often times they are accused of letting opportunities for donation slip because of this.
I mean, it's not like Moses, Methuselah, and all the other prophets were neanderthals, or cave men, or whatever.
Actually, if you believe the dates they give you in the Bible, they pretty much were. Modern archaeology has a pretty good understanding of how and which civilizations developed over time. According to the Moses was in a nomadic culture in the middle Bronze Age. That's pretty basic. Noah by the way was a bronzeage engineer who built a giant cargo ship made of wood.:-)
Don't base your understanding of history on Mythological texts. Nothing irks me more than when people take images from Charlton Heston movies and picture books and think they're historic.
Either way the question still stands. Organ donation is a form of human charity where one donor gives to an unknown receiver. If you aren't willing to give, be it for religious considerations or just fear, how can you possibly be okay with other people's body's being "harvested" for you?
The answer is the same as ever. Most people change their view on organ donation radically when they or someone close is affected.
Apart from this basic justness argument, the debate over the exact definition of death isn't uniquely Jewish. People's commit to donation because of confidence in our understanding of medicine and also just simply the desire to help, not because their religion either forbids or permits it. What a lot of people certainly object to is if you allow religious beliefs to interfere with your personal moral judgment, especially if the religious choice can mean the death of another person.
The Austrian empire had annexed and occupied major parts of slavic land. Germany had annexed previously french territory.
Imperial ambitions caused a number of hotspots and the political instability of the Middle east can directly be traced back to the post-WWI occupation.
For every pi proportioality the reciprocal relation is a 1/pi proportionality, so it's every bit a significant. For a near-circular Earth orbit 1/pi of a year is the time when the earth has passed the equivalent of the diameter of it's orbit and swept an area the size of of a rectangle made from it's major and minor axis.
Slashdot Mirror
The way you use the term "western science" makes it sound like Indian or Chinese scientists are a bunch of voodoo witches.
And if there is no way of telling something exists by how it influences its environment, then how is it different from not existing at all?
Well your first mistake is the term "materialistic western science". There is no other "science". Science is development of knowledge based on empirical evidence. Everything else is religion, fantasy or just plain bullshit.
Science starts with nothing and develops theories around observations.
So as long as nobody can define what "spiritual experiences" actually are and how they differ from the common hallucinations and fantasies of the human mind they don't really exist as a valid phenomenon.
When I go to a restaurant I pay for a meal. If I don't I'm taking up space. They'll throw me out even if I don't take anything along. When I go to the cinema I go there to watch a movie and have already payed for an expensive ticket.
Should a hotel confiscate your phone on the grounds that you're less likely to use the pricey hotel phone and WiFi services?
Should airlines confiscate iPods and the like because they want to force you to pay for in-flight entertainment?
As long as I can't see into the finances of large multiplex cinemas I'm going to call bullshit.
It certainly contradicts observations.
Despite the expensive beverages, ticket prices are far from low. They're absolutely horrendous. I know of places where within the last five years multiplex cinemas have driven smaller theaters out of business and the ticket prices have since doubled.
They say they need the drinks to stay in business, but if they can't make a profit on their main product, which is showing movies, then good riddance.
Should we allow ourselves to be screwed just because some jackass scaremonger lies about how it'll drive him out of business and cost jobs?
But that's the latest trend, as exemplified by this story. Prisons is out of fashion so the justice system is coming up with new and crazy ideas. They may not understand what they're talking about, but when has that ever stopped them?
This is what happens when you allow service and goods providers to dictate the usage and buying of customers. Theaters don't allow you to take in anything other than food and drinks bought from them.
There aren't that many theaters around that you could say it's the consumers choice.
They should just make it illegal for theaters to stop people eating their own food and the problem would be solved.
Elan make products of their own and therefore can't be described as patent trolls. Patents are also rarely used immediately after a product is released.
How much does it cost them if you download a torrent of a show that someone taped from 'the airwaves'? Nothing.
Try millions and millions of pounds. Terrestrial broadcast for an entire country isn't cheap.
Um, yes they have. Their first priority was to apply DRM to the metadata, but they requested OFCOM to review whether encryption should be allowed. Read their original request.
While it first did indeed look as if OFCOM would stop the BBC's treacherous plans, they have since softened and it currently looks as if DRM is well on it's way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/09/ofcom
and they can't because it would break millions of deployed set-top boxes.
The BBC has a few sneaky tricks up their sleeve for that. They would start by applying it to all HD channels.
And then they'll do what they did to encourage people to switch to digital receivers in the first place: launch new channels and water down your previous service so much that everyone upgrades. As long as they still show the news they're still doing their job right?
Maybe: http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/30/nintendos-iwata-muses-about-kindle-like-business-model-for-futu/
Nintendo was able to secure free WiFi for a lot of major network operators in Europe.
If they include a tranceiver for downloading games then using the built in microphone to make phone calls should be trivial.
Don't get your hopes up though, I can imagine Nintendo acting very conservatively here.
That would require a complete photon vector field, and seems inconceivable. Certainly for something as portable as a handheld.
The definitons aren't defined properly. Our perception of depth is based on stereo vision, you stereoscopic images are a pretty perfect representation, at least for a fixed view.
For a perfect representation from every view you of course need to recreate the complete vector field of photons, which is pretty inconceivable.
A lot of people like to talk about two technologies: Hologrophy and Volumetric displays.
But Hologrophy is also incomplete: It completely lacks perspective. Holograms are made at one viewing distance. But if you move away from the hologram the perspective doesn't change. Foreground objects have the same proportions to background objects as seen when close up.
While volumetric displays can show perspective, it's a completely inadequate experience for movies and most games. It would be like watching toys battle it out on your desk. No need for surround sound, that's for sure.
Although it would be cool for strategy games and visualisation.
But that's even assuming it's physically possible. Nobody has figured out how to create and opaque image in thin air. (thin air is indeed necessary, you don't want the index of your medium distorting your image)
That's not freedom of speech, that's copying copyrighted material. The Government won't stop you, but you open yourself up to a civil suit.
It's not just a few joints here and there. Anyone can pick up carpenters tools and make some reasonable cuts with a bit of practice. But all the different techniques and know-how that goes into all those little drawers and supports is indeed a lot of work.
You sound like you already have some experience making your own furniture, so you probably have some of the basics under your belt. But to someone who has close to no experience working with wood every step of the way will be challenge and deliver unsatisfactory results.
And that's assuming you have the plans to build it in the first place.
For some reason, for a lot of geeks, it's never enough to just like something else that's not Apple. They have to LOUDLY TELL EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LIKE APPLE TOO and this despite the fact that nobody's ever been forced to buy Apple.
Swoosh....
I think the trick here is that he's presenting his reasoning for why he votes with his wallet in the hopes that he will change people's viewpoint.
That's the whole point of the matter. People are sick and tired of responses to statements such as
"I think Apple' policy is concerning because of this and this."
being
"Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy it so you're not entitled to an opinion here"
but by the time the court ruled, Linux
already had some pretty useable desktops, and OS X was
not far behind.
OSX wouldn't run on X86 processors for another five years. And as long as Apple ties you to their machine, I don't think we can ever consider OSX a competitor to other "normal" OSs.
I think you're confused about the meaning of the word monopoly. Monopoly doesn't mean that there are no alternatives anywhere. It can also be specific to certain parts of ressources in the market.
Aside from that, 'the court' didn't 'rule' that Microsoft is a monopoly, that's just a word they used. The *ruled* that they were guilty of violating antitrust laws, which get more specific.
Apple had the chance to hold on to proprietary DRM for all music sales, and openly called for that protection to be dropped. And now it is gone.
Actually that came as a direct response to a request by the EC for Apple to allow other devices to play their files and other store to be able to use Fairplay. For Apple this was the only reason they wanted the DRM anyway.
This whole "if you don't like it that's your opinion" crap is getting ridiculous.
Yes, we realize that products are made for diverse markets, and people have different priorities. But if we can't call bullshit when we see it what's the point of having a forum of discussion.
Back to the topic:
The iPad is a nice device. But there are a lot of things inherently wrong with it. And I find it worrying that Apple, otherwise often a pioneer in technology is capable of ruining an otherwise good device and wants to severely restrict what I do with it. I think there's something very wrong with that. Even if I'd never contemplate buying an iPad.
Blood donation is about saving people's lives, not politically correct bullshit or opposing 'prevalent' views. It's also a bit of a push calling it discrimination. It isn't anybody's *right* to have their blood taken and nobody is required to accept a donation.
And the simple fact of the matter is that certain groups have higher risks than others. Most of them are far lower risk than homosexual men by the way.
They don't. At least in most major western countries. In most cases Hospitals actually lose out when organs are donated. It's a fairly difficult operation and takes up a good amount of resources. It's a very expensive procedure and the reimbursement they receive for it is often very lean. Often times they are accused of letting opportunities for donation slip because of this.
I mean, it's not like Moses, Methuselah, and all the other prophets were neanderthals, or cave men, or whatever.
Actually, if you believe the dates they give you in the Bible, they pretty much were. Modern archaeology has a pretty good understanding of how and which civilizations developed over time. According to the Moses was in a nomadic culture in the middle Bronze Age. That's pretty basic. :-)
Noah by the way was a bronzeage engineer who built a giant cargo ship made of wood.
Don't base your understanding of history on Mythological texts. Nothing irks me more than when people take images from Charlton Heston movies and picture books and think they're historic.
Either way the question still stands. Organ donation is a form of human charity where one donor gives to an unknown receiver. If you aren't willing to give, be it for religious considerations or just fear, how can you possibly be okay with other people's body's being "harvested" for you?
The answer is the same as ever. Most people change their view on organ donation radically when they or someone close is affected.
Apart from this basic justness argument, the debate over the exact definition of death isn't uniquely Jewish. People's commit to donation because of confidence in our understanding of medicine and also just simply the desire to help, not because their religion either forbids or permits it.
What a lot of people certainly object to is if you allow religious beliefs to interfere with your personal moral judgment, especially if the religious choice can mean the death of another person.
That was certainly not an external threat but rather a massive breach in internal security. Executed by a handful of extremists.
The Austrian empire had annexed and occupied major parts of slavic land. Germany had annexed previously french territory.
Imperial ambitions caused a number of hotspots and the political instability of the Middle east can directly be traced back to the post-WWI occupation.
For every pi proportioality the reciprocal relation is a 1/pi proportionality, so it's every bit a significant. For a near-circular Earth orbit 1/pi of a year is the time when the earth has passed the equivalent of the diameter of it's orbit and swept an area the size of of a rectangle made from it's major and minor axis.