The thing is that there are regulations everywhere to limit exposure to hazardous substances. Even substances which haven't even been proven to be hazardous are often severely restricted. They set their standards to keep exposure levels in the workplace at a practical minimum. Within such an enironment, the effects of smoking tobacco are obscene. If you go into a room with someone smoking you will accumulate more hazardous substances and known carciogens than any regulated workplace in the developed world. By what reasoning do we allow smokers to pollute the air in a way no-one else could get away with?
when it looks flat, lifeless, unrealistic, out of place, and cartoony... when muscles don't move like they are supposed to, when gravity doesn't work like it's supposed to... even if you can jump and fly though the air.... you still do it in a gravitational field, like birds do.. when lighting is off, when eyebrows don't work right, when eyes are glassy and expressionless, when hairs don't crinkle properly. when the cruft and the crud are missing, the mud and bugs and spit and blood are nowhere to be found, when things crash and bang like they aren't supposed to
And you're recommend switching to puppets?
.... when everything is too pretty, or prettily ugly
That's a design decision.
the sky too clear
You've never seen a clear sky before? You must be British.
Reactors produce radioactive waste which would be a significant hazard leaked into the environment. Neither product is inherently safer, and has to be handled and stored with utmost care. The advantage of fast-breeders is that they produce only a tiny fraction of waste that other designs do. In other words, we could switch to breeder reactors and produce significantly less waste than we do today. In fact, by reprocessing fuel we could completely alleviate expansion of future waste, and we would still only have the waste problem from the last 40 years that we're stuck with.
Hey. I've got a brilliant Idea. Let's construct a thermonuclear fusion reactor at the center of the solar system. We will collect the radiation energy with photovoltaic cells pointed to the sky. As there are no moving parts, it wouldn't require much maintainence either. Why hasn't anybody implemented such a brilliant idea?
No, because there are no unlawful claims or demands. In fact, doing anything other than the two options mentioned could be very harmful to himself. If anything, the employer is using extortion by saying "if you don't want to lose your job you better well ignore licenses".
If the only thing that distinguishes you from other guys is you willingness to install unlicensed software on computers, you're not going to get far up the ladder anyway.
It was a total shot in the dark. By all means, do those when there isn't anything better to try, or you can't wait. Problem is, there usually are more visible targets to aim for.
That sounds a bit aloof considering that one of the most revolutionary images ever taken of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field, was exactly that, a shot in the dark. And yes, there were a ton of "more visible" targets.
As soon as you have new technology available, the first thing you do is try out the unknown.
As for SETI, it's more a question of information theory than of physics. Radio waves are the only current conceivable way of detecting life. The only problem is the amount of analysis and processing that may be necessary.
Something else I wonder is whether the fundamentals of nature make the whole scheme of using a carrier signal with modulation (amplitude, frequency, phase) the way to use the electromagnetic spectrum.
That's the only way to use the electromagnetic spectrum, as those parameters completely describe the physical properties.
"corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation
Three guesses what the "C" in "BBC" stands for.
I consider corporate interest of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias.
WTF?
And I am not mistaken in this consideration.
Wow. Feeling self-confident today, aren't we?
I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement".
Way to go. You link to an article by News Corp, the largest, most biased media organisation in the world which jumps at every chance to take a stab at the BBC. Your other links are to a blog that is fixated on the BBCs coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite being the only major western news organisation with an extensive network in Palestine.
But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased?
People will have a personal opinion, but that needn't influence their work. That's more or lesswhat being objective means.
The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization.
Your assumption of inherent bias is dangerous and simply untrue. When senior figures attack their organisation they do indeed give them adequate coverage, as illustrated by the articles linked earlier on in the thread.
You seem to be mistaking reporting bias with corporate interest. BBC programs are required to be objective and unbiased, and it seems they live up to that requirement more than most broadcasters.
Where the hell do they fine you for letting a cat out?
If it's an indoor cat going out on trips it seems fine. But cat's love to just hang about outside on their own. Unlike dogs, cats are very quiet creatures who like to be left alone most of the time.
I have the same problem with the cruise control on my car. The way it works is that there are two buttons for the CC. There's this "feature" that when you brake and deactivate the cruise control, it remembers your last speed. Sooner or later you'll probably want to set it back on again. That's where the two buttons come in. While the "minus" button will set the CC to your current speed, pressing the "plus" button acelerate the car at an alarming rate up to your last speed.
It surprised me twice before I read the fucking manual. Obviously most people won't do that.
It's rediculously dangerous for a totally bullshit and useless feature. It's not as if cruise control is new and exciting tech here.
In my opinion there should be stricter usability standards for cars. You could probably prevent thousands of accidents simply by requiring car radios to be more ergonomic and simple-tp-use. I shouldn't have to read a manual to tune in to a stupid radio station.
The main reason is speed radars, or more accurately the morons who are challenged by the concept of a speed limit. Speed cameras already allow for a buffer and error. This creates a situation where I can be confident driving 10 km/h over the limit, but not if it's a 30km/h limit, because the margins are too small. Shear stupidity.
Many cars actually have some kind of feature for service and testing which will for example show the real speed on the radio display after pushing a certain sequence.
No, that doesn't explain it. Poland actually has relatively high Internet penetration. Developing countries on the other hand seem to be much more dependant on Internet Explorer, although this might have something to do with the popularity of Internet Cafés rather than a home connection.
If I were to keep my cat tied down I wouldn't see the point in keeping one. It's a stark contradiction to their nature. Sure they can get killed just like any animal or human. That's life.
BTW, if you have your cat or dog chiped you can be contacted when a pound picks them up. No problem there.
Even if it were determined that Pystar infringes on Apple's rights by distributing a modified version of OSX (which still seems to me to fall under $117 a 1 as a necessary adaptation), the lack of "authorization" doesn't seem to be viral. The user would still be the owner of an, albeit unlawful, computer program and would be allowed to copy it as often as necessary to use the software.
The law doesn't make a destinction between transient and permanent copies, particularly the right for archiving and backup (important if the machine could eat up your tape regularly) suggest that the law is explicitely for all means of copying that are necessary to use the program. As OSX cannot be run from the optical disc, a copy to the hard drive would be permitted.
Of course, this applies to rightful owners of a legal copy. So it seems that it boils down to whether Apple's intended circumvention of 117 of copyright code by claiming that the "purchaser" of the copy is not the "owner" is legal and valid.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is that there are regulations everywhere to limit exposure to hazardous substances. Even substances which haven't even been proven to be hazardous are often severely restricted. They set their standards to keep exposure levels in the workplace at a practical minimum.
Within such an enironment, the effects of smoking tobacco are obscene. If you go into a room with someone smoking you will accumulate more hazardous substances and known carciogens than any regulated workplace in the developed world.
By what reasoning do we allow smokers to pollute the air in a way no-one else could get away with?
The two might not be as unrelated as you think
Solely counting cancer deaths of smokers is a bit of a short-sighted evaluation of it's effect on public health.
What about a micro-mechanical iPhone?
There's no prestige in using a phone instead of a watch. It's merely convinience and elimination of redundancy.
I find you to be an unsatisfiable and easily led cohort. Look at the shiny!
To be honest, that sounds a bit rich coming from the guy with a Rolex watch.
when it looks flat, lifeless, unrealistic, out of place, and cartoony... when muscles don't move like they are supposed to, when gravity doesn't work like it's supposed to... even if you can jump and fly though the air.... you still do it in a gravitational field, like birds do.. when lighting is off, when eyebrows don't work right, when eyes are glassy and expressionless, when hairs don't crinkle properly. when the cruft and the crud are missing, the mud and bugs and spit and blood are nowhere to be found, when things crash and bang like they aren't supposed to
And you're recommend switching to puppets?
.... when everything is too pretty, or prettily ugly
That's a design decision.
the sky too clear
You've never seen a clear sky before? You must be British.
Reactors produce radioactive waste which would be a significant hazard leaked into the environment. Neither product is inherently safer, and has to be handled and stored with utmost care.
The advantage of fast-breeders is that they produce only a tiny fraction of waste that other designs do. In other words, we could switch to breeder reactors and produce significantly less waste than we do today. In fact, by reprocessing fuel we could completely alleviate expansion of future waste, and we would still only have the waste problem from the last 40 years that we're stuck with.
Hey. I've got a brilliant Idea. Let's construct a thermonuclear fusion reactor at the center of the solar system. We will collect the radiation energy with photovoltaic cells pointed to the sky. As there are no moving parts, it wouldn't require much maintainence either. Why hasn't anybody implemented such a brilliant idea?
No, because there are no unlawful claims or demands. In fact, doing anything other than the two options mentioned could be very harmful to himself.
If anything, the employer is using extortion by saying "if you don't want to lose your job you better well ignore licenses".
If the only thing that distinguishes you from other guys is you willingness to install unlicensed software on computers, you're not going to get far up the ladder anyway.
And it isn't.
It was a total shot in the dark. By all means, do those when there isn't anything better to try, or you can't wait. Problem is, there usually are more visible targets to aim for.
That sounds a bit aloof considering that one of the most revolutionary images ever taken of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field, was exactly that, a shot in the dark. And yes, there were a ton of "more visible" targets.
As soon as you have new technology available, the first thing you do is try out the unknown.
As for SETI, it's more a question of information theory than of physics. Radio waves are the only current conceivable way of detecting life. The only problem is the amount of analysis and processing that may be necessary.
Something else I wonder is whether the fundamentals of nature make the whole scheme of using a carrier signal with modulation (amplitude, frequency, phase) the way to use the electromagnetic spectrum.
That's the only way to use the electromagnetic spectrum, as those parameters completely describe the physical properties.
"corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation
Three guesses what the "C" in "BBC" stands for.
I consider corporate interest of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias.
WTF?
And I am not mistaken in this consideration.
Wow. Feeling self-confident today, aren't we?
I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement".
You seem to have a propositional fallacy.
As an aside, I've googled "BBC bias" and have come up (though trivial effort) with several examples of BBC bias, including favoring "political correctness" and "liberal culture", a tendency to assign racists to the right hand side of the political spectrum, and slanting the coverage of some religious groups.
Way to go. You link to an article by News Corp, the largest, most biased media organisation in the world which jumps at every chance to take a stab at the BBC.
Your other links are to a blog that is fixated on the BBCs coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite being the only major western news organisation with an extensive network in Palestine.
But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased?
People will have a personal opinion, but that needn't influence their work. That's more or lesswhat being objective means.
The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization.
Your assumption of inherent bias is dangerous and simply untrue. When senior figures attack their organisation they do indeed give them adequate coverage, as illustrated by the articles linked earlier on in the thread.
Exactly
For instance, it's very difficult to find an encrypted, bluetooth, full-sized, optical, wheel mouse without side-buttons.
Keyboards I can understand, but why do you need to encrypt your mouse signal?
Not entirely. Human interface devices are very stubborn with PCs. That's why gamers still play on devices specifically designed for easy typing.
Most "revolutionary" devices o offer improvements, but as applications don't support them they're seldom used and quickly fall into obscurity.
Can't you just turn that function off? Or trade it for mine, I'm sure I#d be happy with it ;-)
You seem to be mistaking reporting bias with corporate interest.
BBC programs are required to be objective and unbiased, and it seems they live up to that requirement more than most broadcasters.
That would clearly cause conflict with their mission as a public service.
Where the hell do they fine you for letting a cat out?
If it's an indoor cat going out on trips it seems fine. But cat's love to just hang about outside on their own. Unlike dogs, cats are very quiet creatures who like to be left alone most of the time.
I have the same problem with the cruise control on my car.
The way it works is that there are two buttons for the CC. There's this "feature" that when you brake and deactivate the cruise control, it remembers your last speed. Sooner or later you'll probably want to set it back on again. That's where the two buttons come in. While the "minus" button will set the CC to your current speed, pressing the "plus" button acelerate the car at an alarming rate up to your last speed.
It surprised me twice before I read the fucking manual. Obviously most people won't do that.
It's rediculously dangerous for a totally bullshit and useless feature. It's not as if cruise control is new and exciting tech here.
In my opinion there should be stricter usability standards for cars. You could probably prevent thousands of accidents simply by requiring car radios to be more ergonomic and simple-tp-use. I shouldn't have to read a manual to tune in to a stupid radio station.
The main reason is speed radars, or more accurately the morons who are challenged by the concept of a speed limit .
Speed cameras already allow for a buffer and error. This creates a situation where I can be confident driving 10 km/h over the limit, but not if it's a 30km/h limit, because the margins are too small.
Shear stupidity.
Many cars actually have some kind of feature for service and testing which will for example show the real speed on the radio display after pushing a certain sequence.
No, that doesn't explain it. Poland actually has relatively high Internet penetration. Developing countries on the other hand seem to be much more dependant on Internet Explorer, although this might have something to do with the popularity of Internet Cafés rather than a home connection.
If I were to keep my cat tied down I wouldn't see the point in keeping one. It's a stark contradiction to their nature. Sure they can get killed just like any animal or human. That's life.
BTW, if you have your cat or dog chiped you can be contacted when a pound picks them up. No problem there.
Even if it were determined that Pystar infringes on Apple's rights by distributing a modified version of OSX (which still seems to me to fall under $117 a 1 as a necessary adaptation), the lack of "authorization" doesn't seem to be viral. The user would still be the owner of an, albeit unlawful, computer program and would be allowed to copy it as often as necessary to use the software.
The law doesn't make a destinction between transient and permanent copies, particularly the right for archiving and backup (important if the machine could eat up your tape regularly) suggest that the law is explicitely for all means of copying that are necessary to use the program.
As OSX cannot be run from the optical disc, a copy to the hard drive would be permitted.
Of course, this applies to rightful owners of a legal copy. So it seems that it boils down to whether Apple's intended circumvention of 117 of copyright code by claiming that the "purchaser" of the copy is not the "owner" is legal and valid.