Contrary to what many news-sites keep repeating, it is well known that traveling faster than speed of light does not contradict special relativity. It is well known that tachyons are consistent with SR. SR only entails that a particle is either always slower than the speed of light, or is always faster than the speed of light, but can't cross that boundary from either side. The real issue is that these particles are neutrinos which are supposed to be able to travel with less than speed of light as well.
Unfortunately you are quite right, it is going to be short. To paraphrase one slogan of the current right-wing government the constitution is supposed to fit on a beer coaster. They do this to eliminate the checks and balances provided by the constitutional court.
They do NOT plan to release it to public domain! The opening line under the link is misleading; they later on specify that they plan to release the music under "a" Creative Commons licence. That's a huge difference.
He probably wants nothing more than being left alone. It's ironic that he doesn't seem to grasp that his eccentric behavior makes that even more difficult to achieve.
The article says that the $100.000 Jacobsen was awarded doesn't compensate him for going through the procedure.
If this is true and projects to future cases, then developers still won't have incentive to fight their case in the court (even if they have a decent chance to win), and infringing companies will have reason to think that they are not going to be brought to court, which rather increases the chance of indulging in infringement. The deterrence factor is low.
By the way the odds of TFA don't add up to 1 either, as they should given all possibilities are covered: 1/500+1/750+1/75+1/50+1/300+1/200+1/75+1/100+1/10+1/20 = 0.2183*.
... is that the process will take longer and longer time. Carnot efficiency is defined by the efficiency of a reversible heat engine operating between the given temperatures; but truly reversible processes would take infinite amount of time.
Efficiency is certainly an important aim, but certainly not the solely desirable aim.
..and it is accessible without limitations from the entire area of the airport. So I'm not sure what is the added value of having an extra free Google hub here during the holidays.
California High Speed Rail Authority officials said the train network would generate 600,000 construction-related jobs while it was being planned and built and that it would create another 450,000 permanent jobs during its operation.
450,000 new permanent jobs sounds an awful lot. Are they going to pay people to travel on the train or what?
The 32-bit version of Menuet was released under the GPL, but the 64-bit version uses a non-open-source licence that is free for "personal and educational use". Why did you decide to licence the 64-bit version differently? Has this had any impact on encouraging people to join the effort?
Ville: With a completely new type of open source project, people seem to have strong opinions about what direction to take. Even up to a point when time is actually spent more with disputes than doing the actual coding. And when that happened, I decided to concentrate more on the original path of Menuet with the 64-bit version and with a new type of license. However, I don't have anything against open source or possibly opening up the Menuet64 source later. But with the current licence, I'd say the people are a bit more committed and willing to put more effort in to a new feature.
Too bad that the fine tuning argument doesn't make sense. In order to run the argument you need to assume the existence of a (probability) measure over the possible values of fundamental physical constants (to make sense of ideas such as "this interval must be extremely SMALL" / "the SMALLER the interval the less probable that it was produced by chance" etc.). But we only observe our own universe where these constants have a given value, and there is no natural measure whatsoever on the space of possible physical constants, neither probabilistic nor a priori. Since we have no empirical basis for making any claims about how this measure looks like (why not a Dirac-measure?), claims about "smallness" of intervals make no sense and the fine-tuning argument falls apart.
It always amazes me how easily people commit the fallacy of thinking that the Lebesgue measure is/should be special.
Your scheme is the following:
1. I think X is morally wrong.
2. I try to find the arguments which could justify me thinking that X is wrong.
3. Selectively use these arguments to convince others about my original position.
Instead, you should try:
1. I have the hunch that X is morally wrong.
2. I try to find arguments pro and contra, and decide on their basis whether I was initially right or wrong.
3. Take action on the basis of the result of my deliberation in step 2, instead of sticking to my hunch in step 1.
This should be combined with the head-tracking solution by Johnny Chung Lee (your head is the object which is recognized) - low cost 3D first person shooters!
This whole list sounds quite weird. In what sense, for instance, is Facebook a "big backer" of Creative Commons? Their terms of use is in direct contradiction to the CC license. Take e.g. these lines from Facebook's website:
By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
This means that if I previously put a picture under CC-noncommercial license then I can't post it on Facebook..
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to what many news-sites keep repeating, it is well known that traveling faster than speed of light does not contradict special relativity. It is well known that tachyons are consistent with SR. SR only entails that a particle is either always slower than the speed of light, or is always faster than the speed of light, but can't cross that boundary from either side. The real issue is that these particles are neutrinos which are supposed to be able to travel with less than speed of light as well.
Unfortunately you are quite right, it is going to be short. To paraphrase one slogan of the current right-wing government the constitution is supposed to fit on a beer coaster. They do this to eliminate the checks and balances provided by the constitutional court.
...is the authoritarian tendency of both platforms.
They do NOT plan to release it to public domain! The opening line under the link is misleading; they later on specify that they plan to release the music under "a" Creative Commons licence. That's a huge difference.
Are you coming from Verizon?
$300,000 is not the same as $30,000,000 (=300 hundred thousand dollars)
He probably wants nothing more than being left alone. It's ironic that he doesn't seem to grasp that his eccentric behavior makes that even more difficult to achieve.
The article says that the $100.000 Jacobsen was awarded doesn't compensate him for going through the procedure.
If this is true and projects to future cases, then developers still won't have incentive to fight their case in the court (even if they have a decent chance to win), and infringing companies will have reason to think that they are not going to be brought to court, which rather increases the chance of indulging in infringement. The deterrence factor is low.
Moreover, was featured on Slashdot a week ago! But then again the Chuck Norris part of the story captivated more the ./ crowd.
By the way the odds of TFA don't add up to 1 either, as they should given all possibilities are covered: 1/500+1/750+1/75+1/50+1/300+1/200+1/75+1/100+1/10+1/20 = 0.2183*.
Anyone ready to Dutch-book the Macworld fanboys?
"Status @ 22:30 NZT, 17:30 Beijing time, 13-01-10: Despite reports to the contrary Google.cn is still censored."
... is that the process will take longer and longer time. Carnot efficiency is defined by the efficiency of a reversible heat engine operating between the given temperatures; but truly reversible processes would take infinite amount of time. Efficiency is certainly an important aim, but certainly not the solely desirable aim.
...when should we throw our end-of-the-world parties?
..and it is accessible without limitations from the entire area of the airport. So I'm not sure what is the added value of having an extra free Google hub here during the holidays.
California High Speed Rail Authority officials said the train network would generate 600,000 construction-related jobs while it was being planned and built and that it would create another 450,000 permanent jobs during its operation.
450,000 new permanent jobs sounds an awful lot. Are they going to pay people to travel on the train or what?
"Bras don't have the greatest odor either. All day's worth of sweat - ick." Score:1, Flamebait
"Yeah, but it's booby sweat!" Score:3, Insightful
Only on Slashdot...
Score:5, Funny: Only on Slashdot
From TFA:
The 32-bit version of Menuet was released under the GPL, but the 64-bit version uses a non-open-source licence that is free for "personal and educational use". Why did you decide to licence the 64-bit version differently? Has this had any impact on encouraging people to join the effort?
Ville: With a completely new type of open source project, people seem to have strong opinions about what direction to take. Even up to a point when time is actually spent more with disputes than doing the actual coding. And when that happened, I decided to concentrate more on the original path of Menuet with the 64-bit version and with a new type of license. However, I don't have anything against open source or possibly opening up the Menuet64 source later. But with the current licence, I'd say the people are a bit more committed and willing to put more effort in to a new feature.
Too bad that the fine tuning argument doesn't make sense. In order to run the argument you need to assume the existence of a (probability) measure over the possible values of fundamental physical constants (to make sense of ideas such as "this interval must be extremely SMALL" / "the SMALLER the interval the less probable that it was produced by chance" etc.). But we only observe our own universe where these constants have a given value, and there is no natural measure whatsoever on the space of possible physical constants, neither probabilistic nor a priori. Since we have no empirical basis for making any claims about how this measure looks like (why not a Dirac-measure?), claims about "smallness" of intervals make no sense and the fine-tuning argument falls apart.
It always amazes me how easily people commit the fallacy of thinking that the Lebesgue measure is/should be special.
... welcome our new laser-resistant mosquito overlords, bound to appear via natural selection.
This ontological argument is actually due to Anselm (or, in the funny form, to Gaunilo). Godel only gave a logical reconstruction/reformulation.
Your scheme is the following:
1. I think X is morally wrong.
2. I try to find the arguments which could justify me thinking that X is wrong.
3. Selectively use these arguments to convince others about my original position.
Instead, you should try:
1. I have the hunch that X is morally wrong.
2. I try to find arguments pro and contra, and decide on their basis whether I was initially right or wrong.
3. Take action on the basis of the result of my deliberation in step 2, instead of sticking to my hunch in step 1.
This should be combined with the head-tracking solution by Johnny Chung Lee (your head is the object which is recognized) - low cost 3D first person shooters!
I only see scribbles.
The Devil?
Thanks for clearing this up, guys!
This whole list sounds quite weird. In what sense, for instance, is Facebook a "big backer" of Creative Commons? Their terms of use is in direct contradiction to the CC license. Take e.g. these lines from Facebook's website:
By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.
This means that if I previously put a picture under CC-noncommercial license then I can't post it on Facebook..