Not as bad as it sounds. The primary reflector is stationary, but the primary collector is movable. If you look closely, you'll notice that the Arecibo main dish isn't a perfect parabolic shape. Depending on where the rays are coming from, they're focused in different spots... move the collector, and presto - different part of the sky. No, it isn't quite as flexible as a fully movable one, but it isn't fully stationary either.
Correct - and those amendments are very often forgotten when people talk about the Bill of Rights. They were put it expressly because the drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't want anybody to even think that, but were aware that there was a significant risk it was going to be interpreted that way. I'm pretty sure the Comcast Bill of Rights will not have those provisions.
The reason Comcast wants it is because they want it for all the reason that the original Bill of Rights was considered dangerous: it will be an exclusive enumeration of all the rights you have. All other "rights" will exist at the good will of Comcast. Not to mention that I expect all kinds of weasel words in it that mean that Comcast's Bill of Rights will be nothing more than "You're allowed to use P2P for as long as we say you can, and we're allowed to change our mind at any time and without warning".
Actually, the problem would get fixed by assessing performance of patent clerks by how many patents they deny, and how many of those patent denials stay up under revision. As it is, patent clerks have as a performance metric how many patents they approve. Of course a patent clerk making is therefore going to approve anything that hasn't been patented before.
If the head of the USPTO wants to fix the quality of patents, he can start by fixing the idiotic ways by which he measures the performance of his employees.
I remember some little event in NYC that took place a few years ago. Left a few people dead, some smoke, and some rubble behind. Or maybe some other event that left a federal building ruins. Maybe the LA riots qualify as enough of a problem for you?
Face it, everyone's got issues with crazies. The US, however, is the only developed country I've seen where education, intelligence and knowledge are actively discouraged and frowned upon by a large segment of the population.
I'm actually curious about the root of this as well. The only thing I can think of is that the US is so well off that a lot of people can actually afford to be dumb, stupid and backwards, and these people believe that their approach to life should be duplicated by others.
The problem is that Stein assumes that when a scientist says "it's possible", it's the same as a lawyer saying "it's possible". It isn't. Coming from a Physics research background, I can tell you that the only time I'd hear "it's impossible" from one of my professors or coworkers is if they'd have the math to prove it so. Until then, it was "it's possible, even though I think it's about as likely as pink unicorns". I doubt Stein is talking about the same thing.
Finally, what's his goal for stopping the discussion? When do we know all the facts are in? As a matter of fact, we don't. It's the Turing halting problem all over again. If he actually does argue that way, I'd say he's being disingenuous, and is setting the standards impossibly high.
That's why I think his movie is nonsense - he starts with standard hedging from scientists, throws in a lawyer's approach about discovery, and concludes from those two items that scientists in general are cultish and prone to silence opposition.
I have a lot of respect for him, but this is a total miss.
Chinese who disagree with the current political format, for one. Tibetans, for two. And don't give me that liberation crap - you don't liberate a country by invading a country. Iraq is the #1 example for it.
1. Yes. 2. Yes. That's because Tibetan oppression affects more people than Guantanamo. 3. Yes. This is blatantly obvious. If it isn't... I have to question that person's IQ.
And your judgments are all based on Chinese media. What's your point? Not to mention you're confusing me with someone who thought the Iraq war was about WMDs. Don't make yourself sound like what you're accusing me of.
I'm just wondering how some of the neocons feel now that the shoe is on the on side... "Criticism is legitimate! It is not unnatural to disagree on national security matters! Patriotism is more than just saluting the flag!"
Meh. Chickens are coming home to roost - again. Thanks a lot, Dick and Karl.
It's really quite interesting. The CCP has fostered a strong sense of nationalism to further its own interests (integrity of territory, approval of draconian policies, etc). The problem is that they have now raised a generation of youths whose rhetoric more closely resembles what you can find on sites like stormfront than civilized discussion. I don't know how that's gonna pan out.
But you're okay when China pushes their own system on others? Rule by force is fine indeed, but I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you'd be the target of the boot.
If the alternative is to demonstrate in China and get arrested, beaten up or put into camp, I say that it's a perfectly valid option. Considering how politicized the Olympic Games have become, protesting the running of the Olympic torch makes sense to me. I mean, what real options are there to protest the actions by the Chinese government that don't involve you getting arrested, and have the attention of the government at the same time?
Care to quote those things? My recollection was entirely different. And for the record, if Chirac would say anything about being in charge of the EU, the other EU nations would have slapped him down long before the US even would have noticed.
Personally, I think it's far more troubling that a good chunk of oil in Europe comes from Russia, but that's just me.
"Kominis is careful not to mention it but the quantum consciousness people are going to be all over this like freshmen at a sorority party."
Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article mentions exactly. Personally, I think the Quantum Consciousness idea is hogwash, but that's just because I don't think that that is necessary to explain consciousness. Neural networks are weird creatures, and I'm pretty sure that a good chunk of cognitive ability (including self-identification) can come from that alone.
My main beef is that Chinese nationalists do not understand that when I say "The Chinese government ought not to oppress Tibetans", I say it - not the economist, not CNN, not Bush. Conversely, when anyone of them says anything, it doesn't mean I'm saying it. For some reason, that seems lost on them. As a result, I can't be a hypocrite for advocating human rights while Bush advocates Guantanmo Bay.
As for manipulating nationalism, you're spot on. There've been various stories in the past where there was concern that the CCP was breeding a monster it will ultimately not be able to control. We'll see if that'll be the case. But I think the Olympic Games will be the most interesting in years.
Yup. Not only do most westerners not understand China, but I'm convinced that most Chinese do not understand the West (as nebulous and fractured of a concept it is). Every time the Chinese bloggers rail against Western media, human rights and free speech, all I can think is that "that's not a human right you're talking about, and that's not free speech you're talking about." Granted, many in the US don't get that either, but that's still no reason.
Yup - you're absolutely right. It's nothing but nationalism run amok. I find it particularly amusing that the Chinese are pissed off at the French as well. This has the exact echoes of the nationalistic frenzy many Americans were in when the French decided to not believe the WMD bullshit.
To be honest, I'm far more concerned about that than Al-Qaeda. Remember what happened the last time nationalism was this rampant and blind? 2 countries were invaded - 1 without any reason. Furthermore, many of the internal violence across the world can be traced to excessive attachment to a particular tribe/ethnicity/nation. The exception to that are the various communist movements and drug cartels.
Here's something else I've learned from the comments left by Chinese nationalists on various blogs and news stories: they have less in common with me than I have in common with Iraqis. Their concept of free speech is completely different. Their concept of human rights is completely different. Their concept of historic relativism is completely different. Here's what I see: Chinese nationalists value territorial integrity, international face, unity and harmony above all. I value individual self-determination and free speech above all - in other words, chaos over harmony.
You can easily see this in their rage against news outlets, where a bad story about a Chinese government action is taken as an insult from all of western civilization against all of China.
OK, it would work, but it would require a significant amount of effort beyond what can be expected from the hypothetical average reasonable person - an issue in itself, but a separate one.
No, that IS the entire issue. I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if all WiFi routers would come with either wireless turned off, or with encryption enabled. People being stupid is not reason enough to throw out the entire framework of the internet.
I actually find your use of girlfriend as an example to be highly appropriate, if somewhat disturbing. If I ask your girlfriend to give me a bj, and she says yes, what's the problem? She gave me permission - it's none of my business to figure out whether what she says matches what you wants. That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you think that a girlfriend falls into the same category as a house or money though.... man, that's an entirely different issue that you're gonna have to resolve on your own.
To expand your analogy a bit more (and understand that physical analogies for EM waves and computers are weak at best and misleading at worst), assume that some guy I don't know comes into my house and starts leaving dollar bills around. I'm gonna assume that he meant for that to happen, and I'll collect them and spend them. If someone beams a signal into my space that has all kinds of hellos and please use me embedded into it, I'm gonna take advantage of that offer in the same exact way.
Slashdot Mirror
Not as bad as it sounds. The primary reflector is stationary, but the primary collector is movable. If you look closely, you'll notice that the Arecibo main dish isn't a perfect parabolic shape. Depending on where the rays are coming from, they're focused in different spots... move the collector, and presto - different part of the sky. No, it isn't quite as flexible as a fully movable one, but it isn't fully stationary either.
Correct - and those amendments are very often forgotten when people talk about the Bill of Rights. They were put it expressly because the drafters of the Bill of Rights didn't want anybody to even think that, but were aware that there was a significant risk it was going to be interpreted that way. I'm pretty sure the Comcast Bill of Rights will not have those provisions.
The reason Comcast wants it is because they want it for all the reason that the original Bill of Rights was considered dangerous: it will be an exclusive enumeration of all the rights you have. All other "rights" will exist at the good will of Comcast. Not to mention that I expect all kinds of weasel words in it that mean that Comcast's Bill of Rights will be nothing more than "You're allowed to use P2P for as long as we say you can, and we're allowed to change our mind at any time and without warning".
I hope this goes down in flames.
Actually, the problem would get fixed by assessing performance of patent clerks by how many patents they deny, and how many of those patent denials stay up under revision. As it is, patent clerks have as a performance metric how many patents they approve. Of course a patent clerk making is therefore going to approve anything that hasn't been patented before.
If the head of the USPTO wants to fix the quality of patents, he can start by fixing the idiotic ways by which he measures the performance of his employees.
I remember some little event in NYC that took place a few years ago. Left a few people dead, some smoke, and some rubble behind. Or maybe some other event that left a federal building ruins. Maybe the LA riots qualify as enough of a problem for you?
Face it, everyone's got issues with crazies. The US, however, is the only developed country I've seen where education, intelligence and knowledge are actively discouraged and frowned upon by a large segment of the population.
I'm actually curious about the root of this as well. The only thing I can think of is that the US is so well off that a lot of people can actually afford to be dumb, stupid and backwards, and these people believe that their approach to life should be duplicated by others.
The problem is that Stein assumes that when a scientist says "it's possible", it's the same as a lawyer saying "it's possible". It isn't. Coming from a Physics research background, I can tell you that the only time I'd hear "it's impossible" from one of my professors or coworkers is if they'd have the math to prove it so. Until then, it was "it's possible, even though I think it's about as likely as pink unicorns". I doubt Stein is talking about the same thing.
Finally, what's his goal for stopping the discussion? When do we know all the facts are in? As a matter of fact, we don't. It's the Turing halting problem all over again. If he actually does argue that way, I'd say he's being disingenuous, and is setting the standards impossibly high.
That's why I think his movie is nonsense - he starts with standard hedging from scientists, throws in a lawyer's approach about discovery, and concludes from those two items that scientists in general are cultish and prone to silence opposition.
I have a lot of respect for him, but this is a total miss.
Sorry, had to do that.
Chinese who disagree with the current political format, for one. Tibetans, for two. And don't give me that liberation crap - you don't liberate a country by invading a country. Iraq is the #1 example for it.
1. Yes.
2. Yes. That's because Tibetan oppression affects more people than Guantanamo.
3. Yes. This is blatantly obvious. If it isn't... I have to question that person's IQ.
And your judgments are all based on Chinese media. What's your point? Not to mention you're confusing me with someone who thought the Iraq war was about WMDs. Don't make yourself sound like what you're accusing me of.
I'm just wondering how some of the neocons feel now that the shoe is on the on side... "Criticism is legitimate! It is not unnatural to disagree on national security matters! Patriotism is more than just saluting the flag!"
Meh. Chickens are coming home to roost - again. Thanks a lot, Dick and Karl.
One cannot deny? Of course one can. I'm doing it right now. Got some proof to back up you're accusation of falsified reports?
It's really quite interesting. The CCP has fostered a strong sense of nationalism to further its own interests (integrity of territory, approval of draconian policies, etc). The problem is that they have now raised a generation of youths whose rhetoric more closely resembles what you can find on sites like stormfront than civilized discussion. I don't know how that's gonna pan out.
But you're okay when China pushes their own system on others? Rule by force is fine indeed, but I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you'd be the target of the boot.
If the alternative is to demonstrate in China and get arrested, beaten up or put into camp, I say that it's a perfectly valid option.
Considering how politicized the Olympic Games have become, protesting the running of the Olympic torch makes sense to me. I mean, what real options are there to protest the actions by the Chinese government that don't involve you getting arrested, and have the attention of the government at the same time?
Care to quote those things? My recollection was entirely different. And for the record, if Chirac would say anything about being in charge of the EU, the other EU nations would have slapped him down long before the US even would have noticed.
Personally, I think it's far more troubling that a good chunk of oil in Europe comes from Russia, but that's just me.
"Kominis is careful not to mention it but the quantum consciousness people are going to be all over this like freshmen at a sorority party."
Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article mentions exactly. Personally, I think the Quantum Consciousness idea is hogwash, but that's just because I don't think that that is necessary to explain consciousness. Neural networks are weird creatures, and I'm pretty sure that a good chunk of cognitive ability (including self-identification) can come from that alone.
My main beef is that Chinese nationalists do not understand that when I say "The Chinese government ought not to oppress Tibetans", I say it - not the economist, not CNN, not Bush. Conversely, when anyone of them says anything, it doesn't mean I'm saying it. For some reason, that seems lost on them. As a result, I can't be a hypocrite for advocating human rights while Bush advocates Guantanmo Bay.
As for manipulating nationalism, you're spot on. There've been various stories in the past where there was concern that the CCP was breeding a monster it will ultimately not be able to control. We'll see if that'll be the case. But I think the Olympic Games will be the most interesting in years.
Yup. Not only do most westerners not understand China, but I'm convinced that most Chinese do not understand the West (as nebulous and fractured of a concept it is). Every time the Chinese bloggers rail against Western media, human rights and free speech, all I can think is that "that's not a human right you're talking about, and that's not free speech you're talking about." Granted, many in the US don't get that either, but that's still no reason.
Yup - you're absolutely right. It's nothing but nationalism run amok. I find it particularly amusing that the Chinese are pissed off at the French as well. This has the exact echoes of the nationalistic frenzy many Americans were in when the French decided to not believe the WMD bullshit.
To be honest, I'm far more concerned about that than Al-Qaeda. Remember what happened the last time nationalism was this rampant and blind? 2 countries were invaded - 1 without any reason. Furthermore, many of the internal violence across the world can be traced to excessive attachment to a particular tribe/ethnicity/nation. The exception to that are the various communist movements and drug cartels.
Here's something else I've learned from the comments left by Chinese nationalists on various blogs and news stories: they have less in common with me than I have in common with Iraqis. Their concept of free speech is completely different. Their concept of human rights is completely different. Their concept of historic relativism is completely different. Here's what I see:
Chinese nationalists value territorial integrity, international face, unity and harmony above all. I value individual self-determination and free speech above all - in other words, chaos over harmony.
You can easily see this in their rage against news outlets, where a bad story about a Chinese government action is taken as an insult from all of western civilization against all of China.
No, that IS the entire issue. I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if all WiFi routers would come with either wireless turned off, or with encryption enabled. People being stupid is not reason enough to throw out the entire framework of the internet.
Oh, come on. Someone mod this guy funny. I got a chuckle out of twist to an old meme.
I actually find your use of girlfriend as an example to be highly appropriate, if somewhat disturbing. If I ask your girlfriend to give me a bj, and she says yes, what's the problem? She gave me permission - it's none of my business to figure out whether what she says matches what you wants. That's your problem, not mine. The fact that you think that a girlfriend falls into the same category as a house or money though.... man, that's an entirely different issue that you're gonna have to resolve on your own.
To expand your analogy a bit more (and understand that physical analogies for EM waves and computers are weak at best and misleading at worst), assume that some guy I don't know comes into my house and starts leaving dollar bills around. I'm gonna assume that he meant for that to happen, and I'll collect them and spend them. If someone beams a signal into my space that has all kinds of hellos and please use me embedded into it, I'm gonna take advantage of that offer in the same exact way.
Why vote for lesser evils?
You know that linking to Bild is the equivalent of linking to the Weekly World News, right?