o so because they don't care enough to check whether what they're doing is lawful, and probably wouldn't stop even if they knew. If asked, many may say that they support copyright, and that they think it is important, but that only lasts while it doesn't get in the way of whatever they want to do.
Because the products they desire are not provided to them in a way (whether that be price point, format, DRM, etc.). If the producers refuse to listen to their customers, and the customers go behind their back to get what they want anyway, who is to blame?
That has nothing to do with the fact that it is illegal to use as a recreational drug, for the very good reason that long term use produces brain damage.
Strawman. The danger of recreational use has nothing to do with the legal impediments of using drugs in a clinical setting, which this whole thread is about, ie. ideological impediments to scientific progress. Research of this sort was delayed for years for political reasons.
There are plenty of people making bold claims. Consider the doctors who are now trumpeting that fat intake has little to do with heart disease, and that carbs are really to blame. This overturns 40 years of medical advice, and there's considerable resistance to it.
Also look at the resistance to using illegal drugs for clinical use. Ecstasy has been shown to considerably reduce postpartum depression, and marijuana is great for pain relief and anti-nauseant (for chemo patients). Look how long that took to get accepted.
There are plenty of radical ideas out there and plenty of resistance to them.
First, this is not a CA, as molecules affect other molecules in a big radius not just their neighbours.
You're operating under the assumption that "neighbour" is a spatial definition. X neighbours Y if X can affect Y in one time step. This is often correlated with spatial proximity, but need not be.
Most economic models are based on "how we would like people to act" rather than "how people actually act". Much of the time, the model works, but they fail when people act in irrational ways.
A common misunderstanding. Economics models are posed to answer the question, "Given these constraints, what is the rational choice that optimizes for cost/productivity/etc.?"
As a result, these models cannot be used to forecast because people don't always make the perfectly rational choice and/or circumstances are outside the constraints of the model. Anyone making forecasts like this is making a big mistake.
although, interestingly enough, Einstein supposedly hadn't heard of the experiment when he postulated the constancy of the speed of light.
I had heard it was due to a thought experiment, where he tried to ponder what a photon would like if you were travelling at c parallel to it, with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. The cycling electric and magnetic fields would look stationary, which is logically impossible, and violates the aforementioned assumption. The only possible resolution is either that the laws of physics are not the same everywhere, or one cannot travel at c. He chose the latter.
[...] developing thorough specifications before coding [...]
We have more code verification, static typing, contracts, tests and assertions than ever. Somehow I doubt the above.
And if by 'specification', you mean a spec on paper separate from the code, that's because the lessons of the past have taught us that specs are never current, so what's the point? With more expressive, higher-level languages, the programming language becomes the specification language, and a specification in such a language is then naturally executable, ie. code is the specification with sophisticated types, or an executable program can be extracted from the specification ala Coq.
In other words, phased arrays. It'd be really cool if he could deploy it for wireless communication though. There's a lot of wasted wireless bandwidth to recoup.
Our understanding of energy and thermodynamics could very well change, and both the parent and Sean Carroll would be right, and the author of this blog could still be wrong. You're "counterpoint" is not actually a counterpoint.
Most importantly, and this is something people seem to have forgotten about economics, he supported the idea that the government should provide services that are public goods, because other types of goods are better provided by the private sector. However, the way we could provide public goods could involve the private sector (like the education vouchers).
Step2: Disregard all evidence which is followed by a citation to Wikipedia.
That's frankly ridiculous. You may only disregard a Wikipedia citation that does not itself cite a reliable resource for its information. The whole point of Wikipedia is to aggregate and summarize information, so use it properly.
The Jack sound server is proof that an audio daemon can still be real-time. A level of indirection is exactly the right solution. Why don't you focus instead on how to achieve the timing properties you want, instead of hand waving some non-existent kernel API. Every audio output need not be routed through the audio daemon.
From what I've read about systemd the most irksome part is that every daemon that wants to really work well with systemd must undergo quite some code changes.
Not from what I've read. If your daemon already works with inetd, no changes are necessary. Otherwise you just need a small startup file describing the sockets it binds. You can make some optional code changes to make startup even more parallelizable, but these are strictly optional.
Funny, I have the exact opposite experience: solving ALSA issues on a barebones Linux install is tedious and annoying. Instead, I just install PulseAudio, and everything automagically works. You should install blame the distributions for not understanding and Pulse, and configuring it incorrectly. That's the real source of hte problems, most of which are now ironed out from what I've heard.
When I plug in my USB headphones in Windows, all programs using default audio output automatically move from my 5.1 speakers (onboard sound) to the headphones the moment I plug them in. When I pull the plug, the reverse happens automatically. It just works! MacOS supposedly behaves the exact same way.
To do this, the standard approach is to add a layer of indirection between the "real" output devices and the "virtual" output devices held by the applications, and adjust virtual-real mappings on the fly based on some policy. And wouldn't you know, that's a sound server/audio daemon. PulseAudio is exactly the right solution for this problem.
Hence, I think it's obvious this is a case of malicious compliance. They deliberately choose the interpretation of an ambiguous court order that snubbed the newspapers.
Just as a point of clarification: Google has no obligation to host links to these newspapers on its privately owned service. Google has been barred from "plagiarizing" news articles as a matter of law, but there is no law that they have to keep any of these newspapers in their search results at all. Thus, they complied with the court order, and made a further policy decision not to do business with the people suing them at all.
This result need not have anything to do with the interpretation of "all" in the court order, so charges of "malicious compliance" are easily circumvented.
Does your fruit taste better when the price of food goes up? There are two factors that naturally drive up prices: inflation, and cost of doing business. I suspect the movie studios are realizing what a good deal Netflix was getting on their content, so now they're charging more, and thus Netflix must pay more. Those costs are then transferred to customers or Netflix can't stay profitable.
This is reality. Sometimes costs just go up. Don't blame Netflix, blame the greedy movie studios. If anything, sticking with Netflix gives them *more* bargaining power with the studios to push prices *lower* in the future. I'd say that alone is worth the 60% price increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the products they desire are not provided to them in a way (whether that be price point, format, DRM, etc.). If the producers refuse to listen to their customers, and the customers go behind their back to get what they want anyway, who is to blame?
Strawman. The danger of recreational use has nothing to do with the legal impediments of using drugs in a clinical setting, which this whole thread is about, ie. ideological impediments to scientific progress. Research of this sort was delayed for years for political reasons.
Finally, the latest studies found no meaningful cognitive differences between MDMA and non-MDMA users, and indeed, there are serious concerns with previous studies on the subject. Which raises another impediment to progress: research driven by ideological agendas.
It will get better with computer-assisted search methods. See "universal induction".
There are plenty of people making bold claims. Consider the doctors who are now trumpeting that fat intake has little to do with heart disease, and that carbs are really to blame. This overturns 40 years of medical advice, and there's considerable resistance to it.
Also look at the resistance to using illegal drugs for clinical use. Ecstasy has been shown to considerably reduce postpartum depression, and marijuana is great for pain relief and anti-nauseant (for chemo patients). Look how long that took to get accepted.
There are plenty of radical ideas out there and plenty of resistance to them.
You're operating under the assumption that "neighbour" is a spatial definition. X neighbours Y if X can affect Y in one time step. This is often correlated with spatial proximity, but need not be.
This has already happened. It's called the Casimir Effect. There are many ongoing attempts to devise a cavity structure for a MEMS device that produces a net directional force. Some have already been found (see the paper), but detailed calculations show that the energy extracted does not overcome the energy expanded due to frictional losses for the current designs. The design in Figure 2 was published in 1983, so this isn't exactly a new concept.
Who's going to patch the security holes on the old version? Nobody, that's who.
A common misunderstanding. Economics models are posed to answer the question, "Given these constraints, what is the rational choice that optimizes for cost/productivity/etc.?"
As a result, these models cannot be used to forecast because people don't always make the perfectly rational choice and/or circumstances are outside the constraints of the model. Anyone making forecasts like this is making a big mistake.
Yes, it was a money grab by the movie studios that were demanding more money from Netflix. You're misattributing blame here.
No they didn't.
Why not just immediately declare bankruptcy?
I had heard it was due to a thought experiment, where he tried to ponder what a photon would like if you were travelling at c parallel to it, with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all frames of reference. The cycling electric and magnetic fields would look stationary, which is logically impossible, and violates the aforementioned assumption. The only possible resolution is either that the laws of physics are not the same everywhere, or one cannot travel at c. He chose the latter.
We have more code verification, static typing, contracts, tests and assertions than ever. Somehow I doubt the above.
And if by 'specification', you mean a spec on paper separate from the code, that's because the lessons of the past have taught us that specs are never current, so what's the point? With more expressive, higher-level languages, the programming language becomes the specification language, and a specification in such a language is then naturally executable, ie. code is the specification with sophisticated types, or an executable program can be extracted from the specification ala Coq.
In other words, phased arrays. It'd be really cool if he could deploy it for wireless communication though. There's a lot of wasted wireless bandwidth to recoup.
For those prices, why wouldn't I just get a gumstix and run Mono on it? The gumstix boards also host ARM CPUs that are clocked 10x faster.
Because their meaning of 'growth' and your meaning of 'growth' are not the same.
Our understanding of energy and thermodynamics could very well change, and both the parent and Sean Carroll would be right, and the author of this blog could still be wrong. You're "counterpoint" is not actually a counterpoint.
So much ignorance about Milton Friedman. He was not against taxes, and in fact, he invented the combination of flat tax with negative income tax. He didn't suggest cutting social programs, but augmenting them with private alternatives with voucher programs. He opposed the recent copyright extensions, and supports legalizing drugs and prostitution.
Most importantly, and this is something people seem to have forgotten about economics, he supported the idea that the government should provide services that are public goods, because other types of goods are better provided by the private sector. However, the way we could provide public goods could involve the private sector (like the education vouchers).
That's frankly ridiculous. You may only disregard a Wikipedia citation that does not itself cite a reliable resource for its information. The whole point of Wikipedia is to aggregate and summarize information, so use it properly.
The Jack sound server is proof that an audio daemon can still be real-time. A level of indirection is exactly the right solution. Why don't you focus instead on how to achieve the timing properties you want, instead of hand waving some non-existent kernel API. Every audio output need not be routed through the audio daemon.
Not from what I've read. If your daemon already works with inetd, no changes are necessary. Otherwise you just need a small startup file describing the sockets it binds. You can make some optional code changes to make startup even more parallelizable, but these are strictly optional.
Funny, I have the exact opposite experience: solving ALSA issues on a barebones Linux install is tedious and annoying. Instead, I just install PulseAudio, and everything automagically works. You should install blame the distributions for not understanding and Pulse, and configuring it incorrectly. That's the real source of hte problems, most of which are now ironed out from what I've heard.
To do this, the standard approach is to add a layer of indirection between the "real" output devices and the "virtual" output devices held by the applications, and adjust virtual-real mappings on the fly based on some policy. And wouldn't you know, that's a sound server/audio daemon. PulseAudio is exactly the right solution for this problem.
Just as a point of clarification: Google has no obligation to host links to these newspapers on its privately owned service. Google has been barred from "plagiarizing" news articles as a matter of law, but there is no law that they have to keep any of these newspapers in their search results at all. Thus, they complied with the court order, and made a further policy decision not to do business with the people suing them at all.
This result need not have anything to do with the interpretation of "all" in the court order, so charges of "malicious compliance" are easily circumvented.
Does your fruit taste better when the price of food goes up? There are two factors that naturally drive up prices: inflation, and cost of doing business. I suspect the movie studios are realizing what a good deal Netflix was getting on their content, so now they're charging more, and thus Netflix must pay more. Those costs are then transferred to customers or Netflix can't stay profitable.
This is reality. Sometimes costs just go up. Don't blame Netflix, blame the greedy movie studios. If anything, sticking with Netflix gives them *more* bargaining power with the studios to push prices *lower* in the future. I'd say that alone is worth the 60% price increase.