I keep seeing this but I don't understand. How is it a "loss" that people can't just make copycat products?
Wouldn't that be a "win" because we want each individual company to try out innovate each other instead of just giving us "low rent" knockoffs?
I just don't get...
It all depends on the definition of a 'copycat product' to you. It's all in the level of 'copying.' To take it to a couple of extremes for illustrative purposes:
It is not a loss for consumers that Toyota cannot make a truck that is 100% exactly like a particular model of the Dodge Ram. That encourages Toyota to continue to innovate.
It WOULD BE a loss for America if someone patented the wheel and all other vehicles had to just find some way to get around without it. While this would encourage people to try to find a new type of vehicle...cars and trucks as we know them would be controlled by one company and until someone was able to discover a vehicle that is as affordable as a car, as mobile as a car, etc. we would be at that company's mercy if we wanted to travel.
That's how people not being able to make 'copycat products' could be a loss to the consumers. Obviously, this isn't as bad as a patent on the wheel, but in my mind (and the minds of many others, obviously), it crossed the line between the two situations where enforcing patents goes from "encouraging innovation" to "pushing companies away from the best, obvious solutions because someone else already patented them."
I am amused that you say "laptops with much larger screen, keyboard and USB ports are far more cost effective" than using an old Android phone. If he doesn't have said laptop and DOES have said android phone...how exactly is it more cost effective to throw away the phone and buy a laptop?
Truth is, most public companies can't see past their next quarterly report. If a liability case takes longer than that, it has near zero effect on corporate decision making. Remind me: how often are cases are handled inside of three months?
You are correct, sir. That's why I don't support that idea. Remember, I was just giving the "super conservative" answers. The ones that most represented laissez faire capitalism, not the ones I necessarily agree with.
I completely agree with you that that is what will happen. Which is why I don't back either of those ideas. Really, I don't back most of the ideas I offered above, I was just responding to the asshat above me that seemed to imply those questions only "allowed' liberal answers.
Some of those Jews suffered immensely in their minds for the rest of their life. They woke up in cold sweats at night. They couldn't stand certain sights. For many of them, they couldn't be around certain smells without being reminded of a hell we can only imagine. Just because they were able to do things without therapy doesn't mean they couldn't have benefited from therapy.
Source: Talking to holocaust survivors who told me exactly those things.
This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
The problem is that the questions aren't about scientific "literacy". They're about policy (see article title). This is why the questions are the standard pap about global warming, research funding (into global warming, presumably), education ("more funding" is probably the answer they want to hear), energy (read: wind farms and other rentseeking green crap), water (mostly a state responsibility anyway), the usual fact-deprived bollocks about "ocean health", and "science in public policy", which means something like "how will you better persecute heretics who don't buy into the global warming fraud?".
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
The only one of those that I think couldn't be answered in a way in which you would seem to like is #2, because #2 requires you to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is changing (note that it doesn't require you to accept that man has caused the climate to change or that the change is unprecedented....and it even provides an out because it asks for a specific position on policies that I assume you completely oppose and then a general question on how to tackle challenges that cross national boundaries).
I think we all know what the liberal answers to these questions are, in general terms, so I'll go through the super conservative answers (there are a couple that I don't know the most conservative response to, but I will note them...and I'm sure there is one, I just don't know which response is the 'liberal' one and which is the 'conservative' one, so I don't know what to put) :
#1: Conservative answer is less government interference in scientific innovation
#2: Assuming you can accept that the climate is going through some changes, the 'conservative' answer is to oppose those policies (and preferably think up better policies to deal with any issues that may be caused by a warmer climate, should temps continue rising)
#3: The true completely conservative answer would be that the government should either not invest in research or the government should only invest in research that, for whatever reason, cannot be handled by the private sector...and much of that should be done by the states
#4: Conservative answer: As much as can be handled by the states should be, but we need to look at our policies for coming into the country (to protect against pandemics) and may need to do an overhaul of our defense preparations for biological attacks (depending on how they stand at the moment)
#5: The true conservative answer to this is that our public schools are failing and the federal government should stay out of education as much as possible. States should have the option to offer vouchers for private schools, as well.
#6: We should look at the natural resources available in the US and make as much use out of those as we can to become independent of other countries when ti comes to energy, in the meanwhile, let the energy companies continue researching any alternative energy source they feel will be profitable and it will be implemented as soon as it can be.
#7: The only real role of the government here is to make sure that what is sold as food is safe and edible. If it passes those tests, then there is no reason companies should be required to label what is in them, but they will if the market demands.
#8: The federal government shouldn't be involved, this is a state matter
#9: The federal government should stay out of the internet.
#10: If the pollution negatively impacts someone, then the company should be held responsible and pay a penalty. Most companies will avoid harsh pollution if it will affect their bottom line. I don't know what the most conservative response to the foreign policy question is, as what is 'conservative' in foreign policy is a little hazy these days.
#11: Make sure
Other jobs she had before being appointed a FEDERAL judge by BHO (from the same link):
Superior Court judge as appointed by the Republican governator.
Senior Associate at a different private law firm (doesn't say what types of cases she handled).
Assistant US Attorney.
and more.
So, yes, one of her jobs was working patent cases (note it doesn't say whether she worked cases enforcing patents, defending against alleged infringement, or both), but it wasn't her only job. Congratulations, all you've shown is that this judge has some experience in the type of law she is judging in this case. What was your point?
Granted, once you reach the level of world class events improvements in personal best times do not generally leap forward much but she is only 16. Her body is still growing and developing and she may not have tried pushing it as hard as she needed to until that race. I've done this before, knocked 4 seconds of my personal best for 400 freestyle, then at the next competition another 4. The first race I had done enough to win it, comfortably, so did not push it further but I knew once I'd done it I had that reserve available.
The point isn't that she couldn't have done it. The point is that it is completely understandable that opponents suspect her of doping when something like that happens. If she's clean and the tests show it, then good for her. But you can't blame people for being suspicious when something like that happens. If someone suddenly shows vast improvements, particularly when it happens during a major sporting competition, there is reasonable enough suspicion to call for testing there. If it was because we couldn't stand for the Chinese to beat us at Olympic sports, there would be calls for a LOT more testing, as they've beaten us in quite a few this year.
If someone hears a gunshot and walks into a room and you are there, with a gun, and someone is lying dead from a gunshot wound, then you can't blame them for suspecting that you killed the person. If, later, ballistics shows it wasn't your gun that killed the person, then the charges get dropped. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying that process, but it's just a simple analogy, it doesn't have to be perfect)
What you stated isn't a gap in their testing though. They weren't looking for functionality. They were looking for was to trigger a false positive for cheating that could get you banned. They don't support playing in Linux/on Wine, so if you have to tweak Wine a bit to play, they don't view that as their problem.
So, they tested it, likely using whatever workarounds are commonly used to test on a 64-bit system, and didn't find any false positives that could get you banned..
This is one area where the cops in my area actually get it right (they normally don't around here). I drive through a school zone every day to get to work and, while annoying, it makes sense because there are always kids walking to the school (school zone is between 730-830). At least once a week, when school is in session, there is at least one cop sitting there.
Levels actually ARE additive, as long as you take into account the ratio of arsenic to water in the body of water after you dump arsenic into it when calculating the level (not to do so would be incredibly naive).
I never said we were releasing water with arsenic in it. I said I was releasing arsenic and you were releasing arsenic into the same body of water. So, let's say we use your levels. Let's also say there are 9,990 "parts" in a lake. I release 5, you release 5. Suddenly, it's 1 part in 1000.
OR
Let's say we WERE releasing arsenic that was 'watered down' somewhat. If we are releasing 1000 'parts' of diluted arsenic each into that same lake I was talking about before. Now, I release 6 'parts' of arsenic for those 1000 'parts', which brings the lake up to slightly over 1/2. If you release the same amount, that brings us up 11,990 parts, 12 of which are arsenic. Which is over the threshold of 1/1000.
Yes, I'm simplifying, the actual calculations would end up needing to be much more complicated and involve things like evaporation, the movement of water/arsenic, and other changes in the levels of water/arsenic. But my point is that one person can release something into water that in and of itself will not turn the water into poison but that doesn't mean that other people can't tip the balance by also releasing pollutants at 'safe' levels.
Of course, we need to keep in mind that the historical sea level rise, which does exist, is itself information. And a better quality of information at that since it is measurement rather than speculation.
And it's good information to pay attention to. But this doesn't say "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account." That would be fine. This says "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account. In fact, make sure you ONLY take the historical sea level rise into account. Oh, and no matter what it looks like, you have to do a linear extrapolation. I don't CARE if the numbers start looking like hey are rising exponentially to you, you will extrapolate using a straight line, dammit!"
so its OK for america to be a douchebag as long as there is a greater douchebag out there ?
No. But, because there is another douchebag out there it does not excuse you from being a douchebag.
But it also doesn't mean you should give control to said bigger douchebag. If you have a choice between two bosses and one is a complete ass and the other is only kind of an ass...neither is good, but you pick the one that's less of an ass.
It would take a fundamental, radical shift away from the First Amendment to "block it everywhere".
No it wouldn't, all it takes is 12 angry men (most likely angry old grannies once prosecutors are done with voir dire) to decide it's "obscene" and the supreme court says it's no longer protected speech.
Until it gets appealed and, based on decisions by said Supreme Court, gets released. And if you think a jury for a case like this would end up as 12 old grannies, you assume the defense has an incompetent attorney and the prosecution has a good one....so, I think your logic is flawed.
On that final point I will add the following quote from the paper (via the article):
One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict...
This is just amazing to me. They are literally saying that educating people about global warming will increase their skepticism, and therefore actually transmitting sound scientific information would be bad. So simply conveying accurate information and allowing people to reach their own conclusions would be bad because those aren't the conclusions you want them to draw. So you reevaluate the merits of your own conclusions, right?
Nope!
Completely wrong. They aren't saying that educating people will increase their skepticism. They are saying that ONLY communicating sound scientific evidence will NOT fix the public conflict. Because people's opinion on this matter is influenced a lot more by their "beliefs" than by how much they know about the science. So, just communicating the science will not change things.
They NEVER said to convey inaccurate information OR not to communicate the correct scientific information. They just said that communicating sound scientific information would not be enough to convince many people. It's a simple fact of human nature that has been known for a while (many people will hang onto their beliefs in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary), they are just applying it to this particular subject here.
but I doubt you'd try to argue that releasing small quantities of arsenic is not pollution.
Here we go. Release of arsenic at harmless levels is not pollution. I wonder what else you got wrong?
Here's the thing. That might be true (depending on how you want to look at it), but only if you are the only one polluting.
If I release arsenic into water in levels that are half what it takes to be harmful and you also release arsenic at the same level (within the same body of water), suddenly the level of arsenic is harmful EVEN THOUGH NEITHER OF US RELEASES IT AT THE HARMFUL LEVEL. By your definition, neither of us is polluting and so the water must not be polluted....yet the water is contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic.
It's a text editor. Removing your hands from the keyboard is inefficient and slows you down. Until you have become proficient at this, you don't realize just how inefficient your wish to use the mouse for text editing actually is.
Emacs is a power user tool. For a single purpose, editing text, it is the most powerful and fastest tool available. It's admittedly not well suited for people who want a more casual tool, but there are others you can use for that purpose.
I think he gets this. I know I do. I myself LOVE having keyboard shortcuts. However, when it's something I don't do very often, I much prefer having the OPTION of having a menu that I can go through to find the command that I need. It means I don't have to go through the manual or look online or in some way leave the window I'm in to find the command I want to use. I can just...do it. Sure, it's slower than knowing the shortcut, so if it's something I'll be doing often, I'll learn the shortcut (assuming it exists). But for tasks you aren't using every day, keyboard shortcuts are MUCH more inefficient than having some sort of graphical interface. Programs are allowed to have BOTH and the ideal program has both.
You do realize that the emacs bindings came first, right?
I hate this way of thinking. It doesn't matter what came first. What matters is what became the standard. There is a reason that a standard set of shortcuts came into existence. That reason is that it makes things easier for users (and more efficient for users). If you only have to know one shortcut for a task, it makes it easier to complete that shortcut without thinking. You don't have to switch your brain over to emacs-mode or everything else-mode to seamlessly use the keyboard shortcuts. And it means that if there is a task you have learned in one program, it's easy to move over to another program when/if you need to.
Emacs is great for what it does and I definitely use it in certain situations, but to act like it couldn't be improved is idiotic. Offering menus (it doesn't even need all the big parts of a "normal' graphical IDE, just menus...they don't take up much screen space) and using the "standard" shortcuts (or even just offering a mode that lets you use them) would make it much more accessible and make it much easier to switch between Emacs and another program (not everyone is able to exist entirely in Emacs). This is a GOOD thing for anyone who isn't a stuck-up elitist who wants things to be this way because "That's how I do it! And that makes it the best!".
Yes, I drive those roads. It probably won't be all that common. Just think it through all the way (I thought like you did, and then I followed my thoughts to their conclusion). It probably will (and should) be illegal to make those modifications to your cars "control system." If it is decided that all automatic cars should go no faster than whatever the speed limit is and there is a way the cars know this limit, then making modifications that bypass this will likely be illegal, as the only purpose is to break the law. So, selling anything that does that will ALSO be illegal.
These systems also will probably not be easy enough to reprogram/hack that everybody could do it. It may not be particularly difficult, but most people aren't particularly good at that kind of thing, anyway. This means the vast majority of people likely won't be able to do it without purchasing something or having someone else do it.
This means that it will only be those that CAN do it on their own and those who purchase these things in the black market who are able to do this. Which makes it more risky than just speeding. And also easy to detect (if the speed limit is 75 and your auto-car is going 85, you've broken the speed limit AND you've modified your car). Yes, there will be those that do it, but because of the increased risk AND increased difficulty of doing it/having it done, the percentage of people who do it will be much smaller than those who have things reprogrammed in their car now (or just purchase fast cars).
And by "always" you mean "until a manufacturer realizes that you can get ahead by trusting other automated cars to err on the side of caution", right? And pretty soon we're having automated cars trying to drive as agressively as possible as yet another demonstration of the tragedy of the commons.
How would they "get ahead" by doing that? I don't see why programming your car to go faster than the speed limit, or not doing ANY of the things parent mentioned, could benefit the company in any way. My guess would be that it would be illegal to sell a car that did that (similar to how it is illegal to do a lot of those things for human drivers), so advertising that your car did that would be out of the question. It likely wouldn't be any cheaper to design that way.
If you're talking about skimping on collision detection/avoidance, then after their first car gets into an accident that could have been avoided, you can bet that the company will be losing enough business to make up for any money they saved by doing that.
The film is done (even won a Sundance award), has played in a number of theaters and, now that the filmmakers are back home in Canada, should begin DVD distribution soon.
Until, of course, the system gets better and has less false negatives and false positives. And integrates with other systems, as another level of check.
Just because this iteration of it isn't that useful does NOT mean it's a bad idea that will never be useful. Technology is often incremental, and while the beginning steps are unreliable, they are still very important ones.
This all sounds exactly like what was going down at Circuit City before they went under.
And exactly why I got out of Circuit City as soon as things started turning into that at my store. The only thing CC had going for them was good customer service and when they decided to throw that out the window, it was only a matter of time.
Why wouldn't you know which direction you're going? I certainly always keep that in mind, and if I emerge from an unfamiliar parking garage into overcast sky in an unfamiliar city and street, there's still a compass in every car I've driven the last 30 years, so an overall cardinal direction is quickly re-established.
No car I've ever owned had a compass in it. And no, I don't automatically know whether I am driving North, South, East, or West without something informing me at least once.
Again, you're presupposing that the driver is directionally challenged. If you know you're going West, this is not a problem. And if you don't, you have a bigger problem than arriving where you want.
Also, with a map, you would know ahead of time which direction to turn. Because you have already looked at the map and seen not only the next turn, but as many turns ahead as you care to. If you rely on the map when you're about to turn, you're doing it wrong.
It actually doesn't matter if you know you're going west or not. If you are going west and you are turning north, it is a right turn. If you know you are going west and you see that your next turn is north, part of your brain has to turn that "north" into "right" in order for you to turn the wheel in the proper direction. Whether you know you are going west or not, if your GPS shows you that your next turn is "right," you know which way you are going to turn without that calculation (no matter if the calculation is near-instantaneous or takes you a couple of seconds). Even if 99% of the time, turning "north" into "right" is basically instantaneous, that 1% of the time means you have to take an extra few seconds. Since turning "right" into "right" should never be an issue for a person who knows their left from their right, it is still a more efficient method.
All that said, why do you say someone has a bigger problem if they don't know what cardinal direction they are driving? It's never caused me any issue. Sure, I know whether I'm on 27 North or 27 South, but roads aren't perfectly straight, so they can go in any direction, really. And I have a general idea of where I am, but not exactly. It's good enough to get me where I am going without any issues, nearly always without using my GPS, unless it's somewhere completely new that I did not get good directions for.
Finally, do you memorize the ENTIRE map? Or just the turns you are going to be doing? Knowing the next turn is.25 miles ahead of me is useful when I'm that close. Knowing the next turn is 4.3 miles after my last turn, without knowing the names of a couple of streets before my turn, doesn't do me much good, unless I am watching my odometer (particularly in an area with a number of stoplights, it's less of an issue without stop lights/major speed limit changes). Which do you think is better, checking the odometer every few minutes or waiting until your GPS announces it is near time to turn and taking a quick glance to see how many roads there are between you and your turn?
It's not necessarily useful very often, but I have on occasion found the way the maps work now to be very useful.
If you are about 1/4-1/2 mile from your next turn and there two lights coming up in quick succession, a quick glance at the GPS and it's map (which you know the layout of, because it's always centered on you) will show you whether you turn at the NEXT light (and thus need to get into the turning lane now) or the one after that (and thus need to stay in your current lane). It takes about as much time as it takes to glance at a speedometer and provides more info that can help prevent idiots from making sudden turns from the wrong lane and helps prevent those of us who drive safely from having to take a longer route or a U-turn (depending on the situation).
If you can clearly see it and are able to read it, you are likely going near the same speed as the car with the digital speedometer. If that's the case for a cop, they already know about how fast you are going. So, it doesn't really help them.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep seeing this but I don't understand. How is it a "loss" that people can't just make copycat products?
Wouldn't that be a "win" because we want each individual company to try out innovate each other instead of just giving us "low rent" knockoffs?
I just don't get...
It all depends on the definition of a 'copycat product' to you. It's all in the level of 'copying.' To take it to a couple of extremes for illustrative purposes:
It is not a loss for consumers that Toyota cannot make a truck that is 100% exactly like a particular model of the Dodge Ram. That encourages Toyota to continue to innovate.
It WOULD BE a loss for America if someone patented the wheel and all other vehicles had to just find some way to get around without it. While this would encourage people to try to find a new type of vehicle...cars and trucks as we know them would be controlled by one company and until someone was able to discover a vehicle that is as affordable as a car, as mobile as a car, etc. we would be at that company's mercy if we wanted to travel.
That's how people not being able to make 'copycat products' could be a loss to the consumers. Obviously, this isn't as bad as a patent on the wheel, but in my mind (and the minds of many others, obviously), it crossed the line between the two situations where enforcing patents goes from "encouraging innovation" to "pushing companies away from the best, obvious solutions because someone else already patented them."
I am amused that you say "laptops with much larger screen, keyboard and USB ports are far more cost effective" than using an old Android phone. If he doesn't have said laptop and DOES have said android phone...how exactly is it more cost effective to throw away the phone and buy a laptop?
Truth is, most public companies can't see past their next quarterly report. If a liability case takes longer than that, it has near zero effect on corporate decision making. Remind me: how often are cases are handled inside of three months?
You are correct, sir. That's why I don't support that idea. Remember, I was just giving the "super conservative" answers. The ones that most represented laissez faire capitalism, not the ones I necessarily agree with.
I completely agree with you that that is what will happen. Which is why I don't back either of those ideas. Really, I don't back most of the ideas I offered above, I was just responding to the asshat above me that seemed to imply those questions only "allowed' liberal answers.
Some of those Jews suffered immensely in their minds for the rest of their life. They woke up in cold sweats at night. They couldn't stand certain sights. For many of them, they couldn't be around certain smells without being reminded of a hell we can only imagine. Just because they were able to do things without therapy doesn't mean they couldn't have benefited from therapy.
Source: Talking to holocaust survivors who told me exactly those things.
This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
The problem is that the questions aren't about scientific "literacy". They're about policy (see article title). This is why the questions are the standard pap about global warming, research funding (into global warming, presumably), education ("more funding" is probably the answer they want to hear), energy (read: wind farms and other rentseeking green crap), water (mostly a state responsibility anyway), the usual fact-deprived bollocks about "ocean health", and "science in public policy", which means something like "how will you better persecute heretics who don't buy into the global warming fraud?".
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
The only one of those that I think couldn't be answered in a way in which you would seem to like is #2, because #2 requires you to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is changing (note that it doesn't require you to accept that man has caused the climate to change or that the change is unprecedented....and it even provides an out because it asks for a specific position on policies that I assume you completely oppose and then a general question on how to tackle challenges that cross national boundaries).
I think we all know what the liberal answers to these questions are, in general terms, so I'll go through the super conservative answers (there are a couple that I don't know the most conservative response to, but I will note them...and I'm sure there is one, I just don't know which response is the 'liberal' one and which is the 'conservative' one, so I don't know what to put) :
#1: Conservative answer is less government interference in scientific innovation
#2: Assuming you can accept that the climate is going through some changes, the 'conservative' answer is to oppose those policies (and preferably think up better policies to deal with any issues that may be caused by a warmer climate, should temps continue rising)
#3: The true completely conservative answer would be that the government should either not invest in research or the government should only invest in research that, for whatever reason, cannot be handled by the private sector...and much of that should be done by the states
#4: Conservative answer: As much as can be handled by the states should be, but we need to look at our policies for coming into the country (to protect against pandemics) and may need to do an overhaul of our defense preparations for biological attacks (depending on how they stand at the moment)
#5: The true conservative answer to this is that our public schools are failing and the federal government should stay out of education as much as possible. States should have the option to offer vouchers for private schools, as well.
#6: We should look at the natural resources available in the US and make as much use out of those as we can to become independent of other countries when ti comes to energy, in the meanwhile, let the energy companies continue researching any alternative energy source they feel will be profitable and it will be implemented as soon as it can be.
#7: The only real role of the government here is to make sure that what is sold as food is safe and edible. If it passes those tests, then there is no reason companies should be required to label what is in them, but they will if the market demands.
#8: The federal government shouldn't be involved, this is a state matter
#9: The federal government should stay out of the internet.
#10: If the pollution negatively impacts someone, then the company should be held responsible and pay a penalty. Most companies will avoid harsh pollution if it will affect their bottom line. I don't know what the most conservative response to the foreign policy question is, as what is 'conservative' in foreign policy is a little hazy these days.
#11: Make sure
Other jobs she had before being appointed a FEDERAL judge by BHO (from the same link):
Superior Court judge as appointed by the Republican governator.
Senior Associate at a different private law firm (doesn't say what types of cases she handled).
Assistant US Attorney.
and more.
So, yes, one of her jobs was working patent cases (note it doesn't say whether she worked cases enforcing patents, defending against alleged infringement, or both), but it wasn't her only job. Congratulations, all you've shown is that this judge has some experience in the type of law she is judging in this case. What was your point?
Granted, once you reach the level of world class events improvements in personal best times do not generally leap forward much but she is only 16. Her body is still growing and developing and she may not have tried pushing it as hard as she needed to until that race. I've done this before, knocked 4 seconds of my personal best for 400 freestyle, then at the next competition another 4. The first race I had done enough to win it, comfortably, so did not push it further but I knew once I'd done it I had that reserve available.
The point isn't that she couldn't have done it. The point is that it is completely understandable that opponents suspect her of doping when something like that happens. If she's clean and the tests show it, then good for her. But you can't blame people for being suspicious when something like that happens. If someone suddenly shows vast improvements, particularly when it happens during a major sporting competition, there is reasonable enough suspicion to call for testing there. If it was because we couldn't stand for the Chinese to beat us at Olympic sports, there would be calls for a LOT more testing, as they've beaten us in quite a few this year.
If someone hears a gunshot and walks into a room and you are there, with a gun, and someone is lying dead from a gunshot wound, then you can't blame them for suspecting that you killed the person. If, later, ballistics shows it wasn't your gun that killed the person, then the charges get dropped. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying that process, but it's just a simple analogy, it doesn't have to be perfect)
What you stated isn't a gap in their testing though. They weren't looking for functionality. They were looking for was to trigger a false positive for cheating that could get you banned. They don't support playing in Linux/on Wine, so if you have to tweak Wine a bit to play, they don't view that as their problem. So, they tested it, likely using whatever workarounds are commonly used to test on a 64-bit system, and didn't find any false positives that could get you banned..
This is one area where the cops in my area actually get it right (they normally don't around here). I drive through a school zone every day to get to work and, while annoying, it makes sense because there are always kids walking to the school (school zone is between 730-830). At least once a week, when school is in session, there is at least one cop sitting there.
Levels actually ARE additive, as long as you take into account the ratio of arsenic to water in the body of water after you dump arsenic into it when calculating the level (not to do so would be incredibly naive).
I never said we were releasing water with arsenic in it. I said I was releasing arsenic and you were releasing arsenic into the same body of water. So, let's say we use your levels. Let's also say there are 9,990 "parts" in a lake. I release 5, you release 5. Suddenly, it's 1 part in 1000.
OR
Let's say we WERE releasing arsenic that was 'watered down' somewhat. If we are releasing 1000 'parts' of diluted arsenic each into that same lake I was talking about before. Now, I release 6 'parts' of arsenic for those 1000 'parts', which brings the lake up to slightly over 1/2. If you release the same amount, that brings us up 11,990 parts, 12 of which are arsenic. Which is over the threshold of 1/1000.
Yes, I'm simplifying, the actual calculations would end up needing to be much more complicated and involve things like evaporation, the movement of water/arsenic, and other changes in the levels of water/arsenic. But my point is that one person can release something into water that in and of itself will not turn the water into poison but that doesn't mean that other people can't tip the balance by also releasing pollutants at 'safe' levels.
Of course, we need to keep in mind that the historical sea level rise, which does exist, is itself information. And a better quality of information at that since it is measurement rather than speculation.
And it's good information to pay attention to. But this doesn't say "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account." That would be fine. This says "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account. In fact, make sure you ONLY take the historical sea level rise into account. Oh, and no matter what it looks like, you have to do a linear extrapolation. I don't CARE if the numbers start looking like hey are rising exponentially to you, you will extrapolate using a straight line, dammit!"
so its OK for america to be a douchebag as long as there is a greater douchebag out there ?
No. But, because there is another douchebag out there it does not excuse you from being a douchebag.
But it also doesn't mean you should give control to said bigger douchebag. If you have a choice between two bosses and one is a complete ass and the other is only kind of an ass...neither is good, but you pick the one that's less of an ass.
It would take a fundamental, radical shift away from the First Amendment to "block it everywhere".
No it wouldn't, all it takes is 12 angry men (most likely angry old grannies once prosecutors are done with voir dire) to decide it's "obscene" and the supreme court says it's no longer protected speech.
Until it gets appealed and, based on decisions by said Supreme Court, gets released. And if you think a jury for a case like this would end up as 12 old grannies, you assume the defense has an incompetent attorney and the prosecution has a good one....so, I think your logic is flawed.
On that final point I will add the following quote from the paper (via the article):
One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict ...
This is just amazing to me. They are literally saying that educating people about global warming will increase their skepticism, and therefore actually transmitting sound scientific information would be bad. So simply conveying accurate information and allowing people to reach their own conclusions would be bad because those aren't the conclusions you want them to draw. So you reevaluate the merits of your own conclusions, right?
Nope!
Completely wrong. They aren't saying that educating people will increase their skepticism. They are saying that ONLY communicating sound scientific evidence will NOT fix the public conflict. Because people's opinion on this matter is influenced a lot more by their "beliefs" than by how much they know about the science. So, just communicating the science will not change things.
They NEVER said to convey inaccurate information OR not to communicate the correct scientific information. They just said that communicating sound scientific information would not be enough to convince many people. It's a simple fact of human nature that has been known for a while (many people will hang onto their beliefs in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary), they are just applying it to this particular subject here.
but I doubt you'd try to argue that releasing small quantities of arsenic is not pollution.
Here we go. Release of arsenic at harmless levels is not pollution. I wonder what else you got wrong?
Here's the thing. That might be true (depending on how you want to look at it), but only if you are the only one polluting.
If I release arsenic into water in levels that are half what it takes to be harmful and you also release arsenic at the same level (within the same body of water), suddenly the level of arsenic is harmful EVEN THOUGH NEITHER OF US RELEASES IT AT THE HARMFUL LEVEL. By your definition, neither of us is polluting and so the water must not be polluted....yet the water is contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic.
It's a text editor. Removing your hands from the keyboard is inefficient and slows you down. Until you have become proficient at this, you don't realize just how inefficient your wish to use the mouse for text editing actually is.
Emacs is a power user tool. For a single purpose, editing text, it is the most powerful and fastest tool available. It's admittedly not well suited for people who want a more casual tool, but there are others you can use for that purpose.
I think he gets this. I know I do. I myself LOVE having keyboard shortcuts. However, when it's something I don't do very often, I much prefer having the OPTION of having a menu that I can go through to find the command that I need. It means I don't have to go through the manual or look online or in some way leave the window I'm in to find the command I want to use. I can just...do it. Sure, it's slower than knowing the shortcut, so if it's something I'll be doing often, I'll learn the shortcut (assuming it exists). But for tasks you aren't using every day, keyboard shortcuts are MUCH more inefficient than having some sort of graphical interface. Programs are allowed to have BOTH and the ideal program has both.
You do realize that the emacs bindings came first, right?
I hate this way of thinking. It doesn't matter what came first. What matters is what became the standard. There is a reason that a standard set of shortcuts came into existence. That reason is that it makes things easier for users (and more efficient for users). If you only have to know one shortcut for a task, it makes it easier to complete that shortcut without thinking. You don't have to switch your brain over to emacs-mode or everything else-mode to seamlessly use the keyboard shortcuts. And it means that if there is a task you have learned in one program, it's easy to move over to another program when/if you need to.
Emacs is great for what it does and I definitely use it in certain situations, but to act like it couldn't be improved is idiotic. Offering menus (it doesn't even need all the big parts of a "normal' graphical IDE, just menus...they don't take up much screen space) and using the "standard" shortcuts (or even just offering a mode that lets you use them) would make it much more accessible and make it much easier to switch between Emacs and another program (not everyone is able to exist entirely in Emacs). This is a GOOD thing for anyone who isn't a stuck-up elitist who wants things to be this way because "That's how I do it! And that makes it the best!".
Yes, I drive those roads. It probably won't be all that common. Just think it through all the way (I thought like you did, and then I followed my thoughts to their conclusion). It probably will (and should) be illegal to make those modifications to your cars "control system." If it is decided that all automatic cars should go no faster than whatever the speed limit is and there is a way the cars know this limit, then making modifications that bypass this will likely be illegal, as the only purpose is to break the law. So, selling anything that does that will ALSO be illegal.
These systems also will probably not be easy enough to reprogram/hack that everybody could do it. It may not be particularly difficult, but most people aren't particularly good at that kind of thing, anyway. This means the vast majority of people likely won't be able to do it without purchasing something or having someone else do it.
This means that it will only be those that CAN do it on their own and those who purchase these things in the black market who are able to do this. Which makes it more risky than just speeding. And also easy to detect (if the speed limit is 75 and your auto-car is going 85, you've broken the speed limit AND you've modified your car). Yes, there will be those that do it, but because of the increased risk AND increased difficulty of doing it/having it done, the percentage of people who do it will be much smaller than those who have things reprogrammed in their car now (or just purchase fast cars).
And by "always" you mean "until a manufacturer realizes that you can get ahead by trusting other automated cars to err on the side of caution", right? And pretty soon we're having automated cars trying to drive as agressively as possible as yet another demonstration of the tragedy of the commons.
How would they "get ahead" by doing that? I don't see why programming your car to go faster than the speed limit, or not doing ANY of the things parent mentioned, could benefit the company in any way. My guess would be that it would be illegal to sell a car that did that (similar to how it is illegal to do a lot of those things for human drivers), so advertising that your car did that would be out of the question. It likely wouldn't be any cheaper to design that way.
If you're talking about skimping on collision detection/avoidance, then after their first car gets into an accident that could have been avoided, you can bet that the company will be losing enough business to make up for any money they saved by doing that.
So what is to gain for the company, again?
Indie Game: The Movie actually had TWO Kickstarter "projects":
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blinkworks/indie-game-the-movie?ref=live
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blinkworks/indie-game-the-movie-the-final-push?ref=live
The film is done (even won a Sundance award), has played in a number of theaters and, now that the filmmakers are back home in Canada, should begin DVD distribution soon.
Until, of course, the system gets better and has less false negatives and false positives. And integrates with other systems, as another level of check.
Just because this iteration of it isn't that useful does NOT mean it's a bad idea that will never be useful. Technology is often incremental, and while the beginning steps are unreliable, they are still very important ones.
This all sounds exactly like what was going down at Circuit City before they went under.
And exactly why I got out of Circuit City as soon as things started turning into that at my store. The only thing CC had going for them was good customer service and when they decided to throw that out the window, it was only a matter of time.
Why wouldn't you know which direction you're going? I certainly always keep that in mind, and if I emerge from an unfamiliar parking garage into overcast sky in an unfamiliar city and street, there's still a compass in every car I've driven the last 30 years, so an overall cardinal direction is quickly re-established.
No car I've ever owned had a compass in it. And no, I don't automatically know whether I am driving North, South, East, or West without something informing me at least once.
Again, you're presupposing that the driver is directionally challenged. If you know you're going West, this is not a problem. And if you don't, you have a bigger problem than arriving where you want. Also, with a map, you would know ahead of time which direction to turn. Because you have already looked at the map and seen not only the next turn, but as many turns ahead as you care to. If you rely on the map when you're about to turn, you're doing it wrong.
It actually doesn't matter if you know you're going west or not. If you are going west and you are turning north, it is a right turn. If you know you are going west and you see that your next turn is north, part of your brain has to turn that "north" into "right" in order for you to turn the wheel in the proper direction. Whether you know you are going west or not, if your GPS shows you that your next turn is "right," you know which way you are going to turn without that calculation (no matter if the calculation is near-instantaneous or takes you a couple of seconds). Even if 99% of the time, turning "north" into "right" is basically instantaneous, that 1% of the time means you have to take an extra few seconds. Since turning "right" into "right" should never be an issue for a person who knows their left from their right, it is still a more efficient method.
.25 miles ahead of me is useful when I'm that close. Knowing the next turn is 4.3 miles after my last turn, without knowing the names of a couple of streets before my turn, doesn't do me much good, unless I am watching my odometer (particularly in an area with a number of stoplights, it's less of an issue without stop lights/major speed limit changes). Which do you think is better, checking the odometer every few minutes or waiting until your GPS announces it is near time to turn and taking a quick glance to see how many roads there are between you and your turn?
All that said, why do you say someone has a bigger problem if they don't know what cardinal direction they are driving? It's never caused me any issue. Sure, I know whether I'm on 27 North or 27 South, but roads aren't perfectly straight, so they can go in any direction, really. And I have a general idea of where I am, but not exactly. It's good enough to get me where I am going without any issues, nearly always without using my GPS, unless it's somewhere completely new that I did not get good directions for.
Finally, do you memorize the ENTIRE map? Or just the turns you are going to be doing? Knowing the next turn is
It's not necessarily useful very often, but I have on occasion found the way the maps work now to be very useful.
If you are about 1/4-1/2 mile from your next turn and there two lights coming up in quick succession, a quick glance at the GPS and it's map (which you know the layout of, because it's always centered on you) will show you whether you turn at the NEXT light (and thus need to get into the turning lane now) or the one after that (and thus need to stay in your current lane). It takes about as much time as it takes to glance at a speedometer and provides more info that can help prevent idiots from making sudden turns from the wrong lane and helps prevent those of us who drive safely from having to take a longer route or a U-turn (depending on the situation).
If you can clearly see it and are able to read it, you are likely going near the same speed as the car with the digital speedometer. If that's the case for a cop, they already know about how fast you are going. So, it doesn't really help them.