Math fail: $39,145 MSRP on the Volt - $19,300 for your CR-Z Hybrid = $ 19,855 difference. $31,645 (after $7500 tax credit, assuming you qualify for the maximum) - $19,300 = $12,345 difference. Even if you manage to negotiate $2000 (and from what I hear, they're not negotiating much on them) off the Volt, it's still in the range of $10,000-$18,000 more than your CR-Z So, my numbers are correct, and the question still stands.
Even at $6/gal or $8/gal, how many miles do you have to drive to break even having spent $10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle? Don't forget to include the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle. Let's assume $0.12/kWh and that the price of electricity magically remains constant for the entire time.
When your speech damages the reputation of another such that it harms their ability to earn a living, AND your speech is demonstrably false or of dubious validity, then the other is harmed by your speech, and may pursue a civil claim against you. Even if they don't pursue a claim against you (or they lose that claim), they are still harmed, and if they are so badly harmed that they can't get a job and end upon welfare, then society is harmed (higher taxes/expenditures).
Your freedom of speech can infringe upon others rights. When it begins to do so, your freedom is curtailed, just as with any other right.
But clearly, it doesn't. People say things that get them assaulted, or sued every single day in this country. Knowledge of punishment does not always prevent people from doing or saying things. In some countries, you can't say certain things, you will be censored if you try.
There are classes of protected speech, including the right to criticize others, including the govt, the wealthy, politicians, corporations, etc. But there are also forms of speech which have specific legal consequences, including libel, slander, defamation, threats, and some hate speech. If you engage in one of those types of speech, you may be subject to legal and/or financial consequences. People know that in advance, and they still do it anyway.
Then there is everything in between. It's not a specifically protected class, nor a regulated class, therefore, it falls into the general area of free speech. However, that doesn't mean it's from from consequences. If a business owner promotes an unpopular idea (political or social), people might boycott that business. That has very real financial consequences for the business and owner, yet he is completely free to say it, and do so without legal consequences.
Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences, it only protects you from specific legal consequences. There are all sorts of other consequences from which you have no guaranteed protection.
You have a misconception about the meaning of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom with the meaning you're attempting to give it. Freedom is not being completely unrestricted, it has never meant that, and it can never mean that. Your freedom ends where it begins to infringe on the rights of another. That's the only definition of freedom that has any value. Everything else is a fantasy. For more detail, see my blog post about it.
Perhaps you should study history. Defamation as s LEGAL claim at equity is a common law principle which predates the US Constitution by at least 1600 years. If you further study US history and the US law, you will find that there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims, but rather, that the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the first amendment intended it to be very much as I stated.
PS. No, I'm not a lawyer. But that doesn't change the facts.
You jest, but freedom of speech has always been first and foremost about "prior restraint" of speech, not about freedom from consequences. Many types of speech have had, and continue to have consequences. Libel, slander, defamation, hate speech, etc. can all have legal consequences. Threaten someone, and you may get you butt kicked, or even die. If you survive, you might be charged with a crime for the threat. Some types of speech are protected against legal/government imposed consequences, such as the right to criticize the government, but there is no blanket protection from consequences of all speech.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. She can say those things, and they can sue for libel/slander/defamation, and in this case, she also engaged in extortion, which has it's own set of penalties.
Windows 8 has 0% because it hasn't shipped yet. Pretty tough to have market share when the product isn't available yet. It's also pretty tough to call it "dead" when it's still under development.
A dead OS with 85% desktop market share??? Tablets and other mobile computing devices may make it far less dominant, maybe even eventually make it irrelevant, but we're a long way from irrelevance, and it's definitely not dead yet.
It doesn't prevent it from working (inside or outside the galaxy), but orientation does affect visibility. The problem isn't whether this can work, the problem is a lack of knowledge about visibility, and that's a problem we can't completely answer from Earth. Therefore, we won't know which pulsars are visible from a given location until we actually travel there (or at least have traveled far enough to map out the probable visibility of a sufficiently large number of pulsars). We may be able to determine the orientation of the spin of some pulsars from earth, and if we're lucky, we may be able to estimate the beam's angular height. But until we have that info for a sufficient group of pulsars, we have no idea how well it will work outside the solar system, much less outside the galaxy.
No, but a pulsar's axis of rotation will be based primarily upon it's progenitor star's axis. The blast may alter it somewhat, but the angular momentum of the star and it's axis of spin are likely to survive largely as they were prior to the SN.
And as I stated before, our solar ecliptic plane's angle to the galactic plane has ZERO effect on the pulsar's we can see. Nothing at all.
What matters are exactly the items in my previous post (that you seem to have ignored).
First, telephone sampling is not done at 8 bits, it's done at 12-13 bits and non-linearly compressed to 8 bits.
Second, the upper range of human speech (for a woman with a very high pitched voice) is roughly 1kHz, so 8kHz sampling is well above the Shannon-Nyquist sampling frequency cut-off. Yes, there are harmonics, but that still allows for a 3rd harmonic within the sampling range. For a typical male voice, such as Zimmerman's, you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 100Hz, so there is headroom for at least the 7th harmonic. When stressed and screaming for help, it's likely to be higher pitched, but there is still ample headroom.
BTW, I make no claims about whether or not Zimmerman has done is job correctly, only that it's plausible to perform such a match/mismatch with a recording of the quality available.
Slashdot Mirror
Math fail: $39,145 MSRP on the Volt - $19,300 for your CR-Z Hybrid = $ 19,855 difference.
$31,645 (after $7500 tax credit, assuming you qualify for the maximum) - $19,300 = $12,345 difference. Even if you manage to negotiate $2000 (and from what I hear, they're not negotiating much on them) off the Volt, it's still in the range of $10,000-$18,000 more than your CR-Z So, my numbers are correct, and the question still stands.
Even at $6/gal or $8/gal, how many miles do you have to drive to break even having spent $10k-$18K more than a Prius or Civic Hybrid, or similar gas vehicle? Don't forget to include the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle. Let's assume $0.12/kWh and that the price of electricity magically remains constant for the entire time.
"Price after tax savings. Net price shown includes the full $7,500 tax credit. $39,145 MSRP with federal tax savings from $0 up to $7,500."
Always read the fine print.
When your speech damages the reputation of another such that it harms their ability to earn a living, AND your speech is demonstrably false or of dubious validity, then the other is harmed by your speech, and may pursue a civil claim against you. Even if they don't pursue a claim against you (or they lose that claim), they are still harmed, and if they are so badly harmed that they can't get a job and end upon welfare, then society is harmed (higher taxes/expenditures).
Your freedom of speech can infringe upon others rights. When it begins to do so, your freedom is curtailed, just as with any other right.
But clearly, it doesn't. People say things that get them assaulted, or sued every single day in this country. Knowledge of punishment does not always prevent people from doing or saying things. In some countries, you can't say certain things, you will be censored if you try.
There are classes of protected speech, including the right to criticize others, including the govt, the wealthy, politicians, corporations, etc. But there are also forms of speech which have specific legal consequences, including libel, slander, defamation, threats, and some hate speech. If you engage in one of those types of speech, you may be subject to legal and/or financial consequences. People know that in advance, and they still do it anyway.
Then there is everything in between. It's not a specifically protected class, nor a regulated class, therefore, it falls into the general area of free speech. However, that doesn't mean it's from from consequences. If a business owner promotes an unpopular idea (political or social), people might boycott that business. That has very real financial consequences for the business and owner, yet he is completely free to say it, and do so without legal consequences.
Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences, it only protects you from specific legal consequences. There are all sorts of other consequences from which you have no guaranteed protection.
You have a misconception about the meaning of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom with the meaning you're attempting to give it. Freedom is not being completely unrestricted, it has never meant that, and it can never mean that. Your freedom ends where it begins to infringe on the rights of another. That's the only definition of freedom that has any value. Everything else is a fantasy. For more detail, see my blog post about it.
Man my typing sucks sometimes. Should say "...that's why they impose..."
Perhaps you should study history. Defamation as s LEGAL claim at equity is a common law principle which predates the US Constitution by at least 1600 years. If you further study US history and the US law, you will find that there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims, but rather, that the framers of the Constitution and the authors of the first amendment intended it to be very much as I stated.
PS. No, I'm not a lawyer. But that doesn't change the facts.
Google agrees, that's they the impose penalties (even on themselves) when anyone is caught gaming the system.
No, but our politicians and media are experts at that.
You jest, but freedom of speech has always been first and foremost about "prior restraint" of speech, not about freedom from consequences. Many types of speech have had, and continue to have consequences. Libel, slander, defamation, hate speech, etc. can all have legal consequences. Threaten someone, and you may get you butt kicked, or even die. If you survive, you might be charged with a crime for the threat. Some types of speech are protected against legal/government imposed consequences, such as the right to criticize the government, but there is no blanket protection from consequences of all speech.
This new learning fascinates me. Tell me again how we can prevent asteroid strikes with just computers.
And that's just what the police did. What about the protesters?
And I prefer cold sake, you insensitive clod. It's generally better quality and better tasting.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. She can say those things, and they can sue for libel/slander/defamation, and in this case, she also engaged in extortion, which has it's own set of penalties.
Windows 8 has 0% because it hasn't shipped yet. Pretty tough to have market share when the product isn't available yet. It's also pretty tough to call it "dead" when it's still under development.
A dead OS with 85% desktop market share??? Tablets and other mobile computing devices may make it far less dominant, maybe even eventually make it irrelevant, but we're a long way from irrelevance, and it's definitely not dead yet.
Or even the Marie, sans Celeste.
Retreat and surrender to two things the French excel at.
It doesn't prevent it from working (inside or outside the galaxy), but orientation does affect visibility. The problem isn't whether this can work, the problem is a lack of knowledge about visibility, and that's a problem we can't completely answer from Earth. Therefore, we won't know which pulsars are visible from a given location until we actually travel there (or at least have traveled far enough to map out the probable visibility of a sufficiently large number of pulsars). We may be able to determine the orientation of the spin of some pulsars from earth, and if we're lucky, we may be able to estimate the beam's angular height. But until we have that info for a sufficient group of pulsars, we have no idea how well it will work outside the solar system, much less outside the galaxy.
Apparently you never read the ToS.
Correction to my post. I make no claims about whether Mr Owen has done the analysis correctly, only that it's plausible to perform...
No, but a pulsar's axis of rotation will be based primarily upon it's progenitor star's axis. The blast may alter it somewhat, but the angular momentum of the star and it's axis of spin are likely to survive largely as they were prior to the SN.
And as I stated before, our solar ecliptic plane's angle to the galactic plane has ZERO effect on the pulsar's we can see. Nothing at all.
What matters are exactly the items in my previous post (that you seem to have ignored).
Already addressed in these two posts:
GSM voice codecs
Telephone quantization
First, telephone sampling is not done at 8 bits, it's done at 12-13 bits and non-linearly compressed to 8 bits.
Second, the upper range of human speech (for a woman with a very high pitched voice) is roughly 1kHz, so 8kHz sampling is well above the Shannon-Nyquist sampling frequency cut-off. Yes, there are harmonics, but that still allows for a 3rd harmonic within the sampling range. For a typical male voice, such as Zimmerman's, you're looking at somewhere in the vicinity of 100Hz, so there is headroom for at least the 7th harmonic. When stressed and screaming for help, it's likely to be higher pitched, but there is still ample headroom.
BTW, I make no claims about whether or not Zimmerman has done is job correctly, only that it's plausible to perform such a match/mismatch with a recording of the quality available.