I'm glad to hear it! My point was that you probably won't get many people walking along motorways, or indeed any real need to photograph them. But please keep us informed of your limb situation. I can't be the only one fascinated!
That's not quite what I meant, as it's massively unlikely! But a situation where the same area - possibly just part of the space occupied by a person - is later filled by someone else isn't that unlikely. On busier streets there'll be a fair few gaps in the image where someone was walking along the first time the car came past, and then someone or something else filled part of that space the second time. While this would be less common than capturing someone on one of the trips it would be more damaging since there would be no data with which to fill the gap.
What exactly is illegal, 1. taking a picture in France or 2. publishing it in France?
To avoid (1), take the picture from space. To avoid (2), put the servers in the U.S. Street view photographs are normally taken from the street, so taking them from space might be an issue unless Paris has moved a tad.
Leaving big gaps in the image? What about chairs that have moved, changed in shop displays, changes in lighting, changes in angle or any other of the myriad changes that will affect almost every business - and how do you solve the issue of filling the gaps left when you remove something? What if there's someone there both times? What do you fill the gap with then?
How about getting a permit to get authorities to temporarily (say 10 minutes at most) block off certain streets to take pictures of the streets at every location desirable. I can't imagine it would take much longer. Benefits? People who inevitably meander into the pictures most likely want to be in the picture and don't really have much of a right to complain. They were warned (by signs, guards, etc.) and they got in (conversely, egomaniacs might not see it as a bad thing to have their faces on Google Maps). Disadvantages? Possibly slowing business down a bit, but it would be a one time thing and I imagine the benefit to small, relatively undiscovered businesses would be enormous. A small B&B with references on Google Maps would boost sales as I know a lot of people that consult TripAdvisor reviews (supplements that appear to the Google Maps images) to decide where to go during vacation trips or even routine business trips. France has 370,000 km of roads, not counting motorways. Even if you only did this in cities the cost would be enormous and it would inevitable cause huge disruption. To avoid creating massive traffic problems you wouldn't be able to block off nearby streets one after another, the most efficient way, so the process would have to be drawn out over a reasonable period of time. Compare this to the current system - a car drives down the road - and you can see that the cost increase would be huge. Plus the benefit you're espousing - exposure for small businesses - isn't affected by whether the streets are blocked off by guards and signs, so there really is no benefit.
Lobbying doesn't change the system it's a part of - it reinforces that system through participation. What it may do is direct the efforts of that system, in the same way that taking turns at the wheel of a boat can change where it's going but not the boat itself. Nobody ever reduced the amount of corruption in government through lobbying for less of it. Demonstrating and striking are not working within the system but opting out or threatening to opt out of that system whilst campaigning and running for office are similarly treating what should properly be defined as different systems as one, when you say that they can change the system of government. Does getting elected offer you the power to change some of the aims of the system? Yes. Does it let you change the system itself? No, not in itself. Likewise, Google is kidding itself if it thinks working for the Chinese government allows it to tell the Chinese government how to rewrite their policies. I disagree with your statement that demonstrating and striking are not part of the system - both are protected by the legal framework of the system and both allow people to express their views, which is a fairly important part of a democracy. As for elected officials not being able to change the system - of course they can. The fact that the US constitution has been amended is pretty strong proof of that!
Well the first question is if Google are doing any good by staying? I'm not sure it is. If Google is doing no harm and no good by staying they aren't under a moral obligation to pull out. Boycotting China is a moral statement but I'm not sure it's a "strong" one - it carries no threat to the Chinese Government since Baidu is easier for them to control anyway, and it's not like they need Google. While it would be a gesture that not all companies are prepared to capitulate to their demands it would be an empty one. I don't believe for a second that there's any chance of Google influencing Chinese policy whatever they do - but they're more information-friendly than their competitors which has to be a good thing for the Chinese people.
If you're part of a system, then you're in some way supporting it. Examples of successfully changing a system from within are few and far between[...] Really? I take it you're not counting lobbying, campaigning, running for office, demonstrating or striking - all part of the system, and all ways that have changed an awful lot of things. Women didn't get the vote because we were invaded. Tax changes aren't effected by an international committee. Abortion law isn't shaped by some guy deep in the wild west living off the grid. Being in the system gives you a platform, and a voice, and an audience. Standing outside the town hall just leaves you out of the meeting.
If Google pull out now they'll be replaced by Chinese competitors in seconds, the move will be reported as being Western foolishness and the Chinese Government will control another link in the chain between content and users. How can that be a good thing?
I had noticed that an English billionaire was substantially more wealthy than an American, and not just due to the poor exchange rate:) What? Where have you seen this? An "English billionaire" - by which I assume you mean a long-scale billionaire - would have to have a net worth of £1,000,000,000,000 or higher, massively more than the richest people in the world! What's more, the Sunday Times rich list uses the short scale billion - I don't know of any other lists of Britain's wealthiest but I'm sure they would too.
Well if it's nearly dead, why is it still listed on Wikipedia as a legitimate use for the term "Billion"? From Wikipedia: "Billion has meant 10^9 in most sectors of official published writing for many years now. The UK government, BBC, and most other broadcast or published mass media, have used the short scale exclusively in all contexts since the mid 1970s. Anyone using billion to mean 10^12 in British English may be misunderstood." Wikipedia says that both existed - but that the long scale is pretty much dead. This is my experience as well - I'm not trying to argue that you're wrong, just curious as to where it's survived.
I absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying, and like you I would be loath to see a loss of the anonymity provided by the internet; even if anonymity isn't often needed - or even useful - sometimes it's an absolute necessity,
I do think though that there is a line to be drawn on free speech. Presenting a case is speech, even if I hate it; explaining your opinions is speech, even if I detest them. Opposing my beliefs should be protected even if I hold those beliefs dear. Real hate speech though is speech in name only; inciting violence is not and should not be protected, harassment is not and should not be protected, racist abuse is not and should not be protected. Free speech does not protect your right to stand outside someone's house and shout abuse at them, nor does it protect your right to stand atop a tower and shout abuse at everyone, and those things are wrong, unprotected and should be punishable whether that tower is a 20 story building or simply the amplification of a popular website.
I don't know what the answer to this is; possibly there is no way to allow people the anonymity they need to express their views while stopping those who seek only to incite violence and hatred. In the real world the courts and the police do a good job, but an internet analog to the real world is difficult to think of - the real world allows some anonymity but makes it difficult to exploit that, while online it's all-or-nothing. As I said, I don't want to hand over anonymity for those who need it because of those who abuse it - but there's worse out there then the GNAA or goatse, and some of these people should have to face up to the consequences of what they say, even if they say it online.
I've heard plenty of people use the term "billion" to mean "Million million". Wow - who? Just old people or younger people too? What part of the country are you in?
I've never even found an old person who still uses billion to mean "million million" - it's been standard to use it as 1,000,000,000 for thirty odd years so I would have thought the old meaning would be very nearly dead!
Remember, guys, "Billion" means two different things depending on which part of the world you're in, so make sure you're not getting into a debate between an american and a brit who are both probably right and wrong at the same time. "Billion" pretty much exclusively means 1,000,000,000 over here in Britain these days. I've never encountered anyone who uses it to mean 1,000,000,000,000, and style guides require the short scale. The closest I've seen to a long scale usage is newspapers still using "thousand million" to avoid ambiguity. Anyone using the term "billion" to refer to a million million in Britain now is almost certain to be misunderstood.
Yes, but why would they care? There comes a point at which there isn't anyone left to get your message out to. Right now, if you're interested in buying a computer or an OS you've heard of Microsoft - or you somehow haven't, your computer will come with it pre-installed. I would be surprised if there's ever been a company with better brand-name recognition.
The highlighting is also barely noticeable! When I looked at the example I originally thought it was going to be the "no stripes" control because it was so difficult to see the stripes.
Do you really think Microsoft needs the free press? They're a huge company, with a huge presence, and they have the best advertising around: every time you go to buy a program, a game, a DVD, a CD, a peripheral or really anything to do with a computer the box announces that Microsoft Windows is either required or recommended.
Most people outside of the US can keep those things separate; something many Americans seem to have difficulty with, as demonstrated by the accusations of "unpatriotic" if you say negative things about GHB. American clubs must be very different to ours!
If you watch the video it makes more sense. They're using a gym-style setup where you pull a bar down to lift a weight. I'm guessing they do it like that because it avoids balance issues.
I've just had a read through those posts. I can't fault your maths (haven't even checked it) but I do have one question: why does the fact that your Bayes' theorem result is a high percentage probability point to malice? You said
In conclusion, the same math that runs your spam filter predicts (99.967% likely) that someone is up to something disabling all of these cables. . Surely the only conclusion you could draw is that something unusual has probably happened - you've shown that it's highly unlikely that this is a result of the normal day-to-day life of the cables, but that doesn't indicate malice. I don't know what happens to damage cables - maybe a rogue shark thought it was a piece of licorice - but surely you can only conclude that something happened, not that it was a conspiracy?
hmmm. So you think that plugging in USB card in a system that OWNS the driver, that it will cross-infect the register? ha ha ha Start using Linux or something that is secure. You window nuts ARE sociopaths. An excellent point, since Linux can never have any vulnerabilites or bugs ever.
Security requires more than just choosing the more secure operating system, you have to protect your system - for example by not letting strangers plug in devices.
If you are looking for all this, it would be nice to have register where the customer can plug in a USB drive and then have the register load the "receipt" on it. I am always amazed that none of the stores have this. I know that it would be useful to buy food from King Soopers and then take the info home and plug it into various applications including a kitchen app and a budget app. I'm not convinced. Sounds like it'll take longer, create problems when USB devices don't work, create problems when someone's stick uses a different file system, open a new vector for attack, increase maintenance costs and have no real advantage over an easy, secure paper receipt which most people will choose anyway. If you want to put your food into a budget/kitchen app you already can - you have the receipt and, failing that, the food itself.
My worry if Government took over the job of drug discovery is that every project would have to be justified as "good for the country". Mixing politics and life-saving medicine scares me - I have no doubt that we would end up using them to hold countries hostage when they don't agree with us.
And while using life saving medicine as a political tool is the scariest development, I would also worry for the future of any drug research that isn't immediately life saving; falling budgets in Britain have seen geriatrics and mental health wards - both seen as "non critical" - cut back massively to save costs. A lot of drug research doesn't aim to save lives - but the treatments are still welcomed by sufferers. I suspect these would be the first casualties of the cash-strapped US government's takeover of the industry.
And finally, I can't really imagine the US (or any other country) being too happy with the idea of spending $1bn on research only for India to export the drugs and collect money for them. So I think we'd still see a patent of some sort.
Considering that many of the medicines that are routinely used these days were discovered before drug patents, I would say that you are just completely misinformed. Patents were available in England (and colonised America) from 1623, and after the American revolution most states passed an equivalent law. Most "routinely used" drugs were discovered rather later; Penicillin, for example, was discovered in 1928, and its lack of patent protection was largely chance. I'd be interested to know which drugs you were referring to that were invented before drug patents were available.
Drug patents have one interesting side effect though: some people are unable to get the medicine they need, because the drug companies refuse to sell it in a region where they are not likely to turn a profit, and the governments of those regions are told they face economic sanctions if they tolerate patent infringement. Drug patents are a disgrace that worsen an already bad medical situation in Africa. This is not a side effect of drug patents, since without them it's probable that these people still wouldn't have access to the medication - and neither would anyone else. We've moved on from the days when one scientist in his basement with some petri dishes was enough evidence to use a therapy; nowadays drugs need years of testing, and our expectations are higher - we want fewer side effects and better treatment with every new drug. According to "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs" (published in the Journal of Health Economics in 2003) in 2000 the total cost of developing a drug, before approval, averaged $802 million. The patent protection (which normally lasts less than 12 years after approval) is our way of allowing companies to recoup these costs; if we don't want to allow this any more we're going to need to funnel a lot more public money into drug research - based on the BBC's estimates from 2006, European private drug development cost more than half the entire US health department's annual budget. Given that the US is currently somewhere around $9 trillion in debt, that money's going to be hard to find. Especially since the capital expenditure (extrapolating from that of GSK - I'm afraid I don't want to trawl any more financial reports) will add another $10bn - equivalent to the Department of Labor.
This isn't to say I don't agree that drugs are overpriced and should be made available to those who need them at prices they can pay, it's just to say that drug patents are not necessarily themselves the problem. WTO rules allow countries to ignore patent laws in a national emergency. It's not the patents that are stopping the drugs getting to the sick people, it's the drug lobby, which can guarantee their monopoly by having it tacked on to aid bills, both in the US and elsewhere.
I don't think they would be affected; companies are prohibited from taking part in procurement processes and from submitting a tender - I don't think these would be required since there is only one entity providing licenses.
This is all just speculation of course - as I said, I don't think this is the situation envisaged when the law was written, so it is understandably not very specific about it.
Not only that but imagine the resources turned onto moving from MS to Open source solutions. It could end MS as a major player in the EU institutions and that would knock on into the private sector. I'm not convinced that it would have quite the effect you envisage. This would prohibit European institutions from procuring new software from Microsoft. They would still be able to use their current software - which I expect they would, rather than spending vast sums on retraining - and it's not even clear to me that they couldn't buy Microsoft products through an intermediary.
From the language of the rules, it sounds like this is designed to stop the EU procuring goods or services from shady distributors; from my reading it doesn't sound like it's designed to limit the options of the EU if they decide that Microsoft is the best option - whatever they may be guilty of, Microsoft are not going to cut-and-run.
No, I don't want to see the state require what parents must teach their kids. Basic liberty and even biological diversity depend on parents exercising the maximum freedom possible in teaching their kids.
There is a good case for holding parents responsible when their kids break laws their parents should be responsible for teaching them not to break. How do you reconcile those two views? Surely parents are not free to raise their children how they wish if we punish them for raising them "wrong"?
I don't see any problem with making sure children are taught basic life skills at school. Maybe for some children those skills are better taught at home, but this neglects those children whose parents are too busy, too tired or simply too uninformed to teach things like internet safety. Public education isn't just about teaching children to read and count, it's about giving every child an equal footing so that success really is built on ability and effort and not on your parents' wealth or intellect. Yes, perfect social mobility and perfect equality are unobtainable, but every time I hear talk of moving teaching from the school to the home the "American dream" rings a little more hollow.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad to hear it! My point was that you probably won't get many people walking along motorways, or indeed any real need to photograph them. But please keep us informed of your limb situation. I can't be the only one fascinated!
That's not quite what I meant, as it's massively unlikely! But a situation where the same area - possibly just part of the space occupied by a person - is later filled by someone else isn't that unlikely. On busier streets there'll be a fair few gaps in the image where someone was walking along the first time the car came past, and then someone or something else filled part of that space the second time. While this would be less common than capturing someone on one of the trips it would be more damaging since there would be no data with which to fill the gap.
1. taking a picture in France
or
2. publishing it in France?
To avoid (1), take the picture from space.
To avoid (2), put the servers in the U.S. Street view photographs are normally taken from the street, so taking them from space might be an issue unless Paris has moved a tad.
Leaving big gaps in the image? What about chairs that have moved, changed in shop displays, changes in lighting, changes in angle or any other of the myriad changes that will affect almost every business - and how do you solve the issue of filling the gaps left when you remove something? What if there's someone there both times? What do you fill the gap with then?
If Google pull out now they'll be replaced by Chinese competitors in seconds, the move will be reported as being Western foolishness and the Chinese Government will control another link in the chain between content and users. How can that be a good thing?
I absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying, and like you I would be loath to see a loss of the anonymity provided by the internet; even if anonymity isn't often needed - or even useful - sometimes it's an absolute necessity,
I do think though that there is a line to be drawn on free speech. Presenting a case is speech, even if I hate it; explaining your opinions is speech, even if I detest them. Opposing my beliefs should be protected even if I hold those beliefs dear. Real hate speech though is speech in name only; inciting violence is not and should not be protected, harassment is not and should not be protected, racist abuse is not and should not be protected. Free speech does not protect your right to stand outside someone's house and shout abuse at them, nor does it protect your right to stand atop a tower and shout abuse at everyone, and those things are wrong, unprotected and should be punishable whether that tower is a 20 story building or simply the amplification of a popular website.
I don't know what the answer to this is; possibly there is no way to allow people the anonymity they need to express their views while stopping those who seek only to incite violence and hatred. In the real world the courts and the police do a good job, but an internet analog to the real world is difficult to think of - the real world allows some anonymity but makes it difficult to exploit that, while online it's all-or-nothing. As I said, I don't want to hand over anonymity for those who need it because of those who abuse it - but there's worse out there then the GNAA or goatse, and some of these people should have to face up to the consequences of what they say, even if they say it online.
I've never even found an old person who still uses billion to mean "million million" - it's been standard to use it as 1,000,000,000 for thirty odd years so I would have thought the old meaning would be very nearly dead!
Yes, but why would they care? There comes a point at which there isn't anyone left to get your message out to. Right now, if you're interested in buying a computer or an OS you've heard of Microsoft - or you somehow haven't, your computer will come with it pre-installed. I would be surprised if there's ever been a company with better brand-name recognition.
The highlighting is also barely noticeable! When I looked at the example I originally thought it was going to be the "no stripes" control because it was so difficult to see the stripes.
Do you really think Microsoft needs the free press? They're a huge company, with a huge presence, and they have the best advertising around: every time you go to buy a program, a game, a DVD, a CD, a peripheral or really anything to do with a computer the box announces that Microsoft Windows is either required or recommended.
If you watch the video it makes more sense. They're using a gym-style setup where you pull a bar down to lift a weight. I'm guessing they do it like that because it avoids balance issues.
Surely the only conclusion you could draw is that something unusual has probably happened - you've shown that it's highly unlikely that this is a result of the normal day-to-day life of the cables, but that doesn't indicate malice. I don't know what happens to damage cables - maybe a rogue shark thought it was a piece of licorice - but surely you can only conclude that something happened, not that it was a conspiracy?
Security requires more than just choosing the more secure operating system, you have to protect your system - for example by not letting strangers plug in devices.
My worry if Government took over the job of drug discovery is that every project would have to be justified as "good for the country". Mixing politics and life-saving medicine scares me - I have no doubt that we would end up using them to hold countries hostage when they don't agree with us.
And while using life saving medicine as a political tool is the scariest development, I would also worry for the future of any drug research that isn't immediately life saving; falling budgets in Britain have seen geriatrics and mental health wards - both seen as "non critical" - cut back massively to save costs. A lot of drug research doesn't aim to save lives - but the treatments are still welcomed by sufferers. I suspect these would be the first casualties of the cash-strapped US government's takeover of the industry.
And finally, I can't really imagine the US (or any other country) being too happy with the idea of spending $1bn on research only for India to export the drugs and collect money for them. So I think we'd still see a patent of some sort.
This isn't to say I don't agree that drugs are overpriced and should be made available to those who need them at prices they can pay, it's just to say that drug patents are not necessarily themselves the problem. WTO rules allow countries to ignore patent laws in a national emergency. It's not the patents that are stopping the drugs getting to the sick people, it's the drug lobby, which can guarantee their monopoly by having it tacked on to aid bills, both in the US and elsewhere.
I don't think they would be affected; companies are prohibited from taking part in procurement processes and from submitting a tender - I don't think these would be required since there is only one entity providing licenses.
This is all just speculation of course - as I said, I don't think this is the situation envisaged when the law was written, so it is understandably not very specific about it.
From the language of the rules, it sounds like this is designed to stop the EU procuring goods or services from shady distributors; from my reading it doesn't sound like it's designed to limit the options of the EU if they decide that Microsoft is the best option - whatever they may be guilty of, Microsoft are not going to cut-and-run.
There is a good case for holding parents responsible when their kids break laws their parents should be responsible for teaching them not to break. How do you reconcile those two views? Surely parents are not free to raise their children how they wish if we punish them for raising them "wrong"?
I don't see any problem with making sure children are taught basic life skills at school. Maybe for some children those skills are better taught at home, but this neglects those children whose parents are too busy, too tired or simply too uninformed to teach things like internet safety. Public education isn't just about teaching children to read and count, it's about giving every child an equal footing so that success really is built on ability and effort and not on your parents' wealth or intellect. Yes, perfect social mobility and perfect equality are unobtainable, but every time I hear talk of moving teaching from the school to the home the "American dream" rings a little more hollow.