Having been involved in national level voting bodies with ~400 voting members, I can tell you that if you get much larger, there are serious problems of scale that crop up. Even at ~400 it is a hard task and the problem grows super-linearly (quadratic?).
If that is what you believe then *amend* the Constitution. Don't try this end-run that attempts to subvert it with accounting tricks. Doing it this way without a proper amendment effectively prevents people from other states from having a say in whether this is even a good idea. This is a textbook case of Tyranny of the Majority.
So you are going to trade ignoring big population centers for ignoring every where but the big population centers? You're still ignoring major segments of the population, you've just changed which ones.
Why shouldn't I be able to run a membership-only website and then broker a deal to provide automatic membership to an ISP's customers?
Both ACM and Springer already do this. Even though I hate that they do this (it gets annoying when I'm off campus), I can't find a good moral or legal reason why they can't.
the beliefs aren't all that far off of any other "Christian" faith
Except for the whole "One God" thing.
(For those who don't get the reference. Mormons believe that "God" wasn't born god but rather ascended (like they claim we will) to become god and that there are thus many gods.)
Unless what it wants requires SYSTEM privileges. SYSTEM is a higher level than Administrator on Windows (which can be rather annoying when I need to do something requiring SYSTEM privileges).
Could you please elaborate? I am familiar with basic OpenGL (i.e. glBegin( GL_POLYGON ); glColor3f(...);glVertex3f( -1, -1, 0 );glVertex3f( -1, 1, 0 ); etc.; glEnd()). Is that what you are referring do by "fixed function immediate mode"?
Why is "fixed function immediate mode" so bad? What sort of functionality is better and why?
I confess that I might be just the sort of monkey you are complaining about but I'd be interested in guidance on learning how to not be a monkey or at least understanding what it is that I don't understand yet.
No space-age materials necessary. A very thin, white sheet will blur the "reflection" it has of a lamp that is 6 feet away from the sheet much more than it will blur the transmitted image of a lamp (i.e. pixels) pressed flush up against it. (I'm not sure whether this effect would be technically called diffusion.) Therefore claiming that one is within human perception limits says nothing about whether the other is.
You are confusing two different effects. One causes blurry(matte) versus sharp(glossy) reflections and the other causes blurry versus sharp transmitted images. These are different effects and one does not imply the other. They are governed by very different laws (*). The ideal display surface would have blurry reflections but sharp transmitted images (sort of like how paper works).
The first is the diffusion of incoming light that gets reflected back. This is due to a spread in the angle at which incoming light gets reflected. That is to say the the reflection is mostly a diffuse reflection rather than a specular reflection. This effect is measured by a gloss meter and unsurprisingly will determine how mirror-like the surface is.
The second is translucent diffusion of outgoing light. (This is where I wish I could draw you a picture.) A blurry image happens when there is both a spread in angle of exit and there is a spread in position of exit. With the pixel element placed up against the matte surface and the surface sufficiently thin the spread in exit position will be kept low (i.e. below human perception). The way you would measure this is to capture high resolution images of adjacent pixels. If pixels overlap, then the image will be blurry, otherwise the image will be sharp.
To sum up, these are very different effects due to different physical laws that behave in different ways are are influenced by different factors. So you can't assume that one effect being within human perception will imply that the other effect will also be within human perception. This concept that matte necessarily must be blurry is complete nonsense. At best you could claim that current matte technology has a problem with blurriness but since that is an empirical claim not necessarily required by any physical law you are going to have to back it up with a citation.
(*) Angle of reflection is completely different than the amount of bending of light passing between two different mediums.
Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much.
[citation needed]
I'm serious. Find a study that objectively measures how much one pixel gets scattered by a matte screen. If it is anything less than 10% (*) of the size of a pixel, then that effect is probably below the human perception threshold. Even if larger it may still be below the perception threshold.
Um, like who? The three biggest publishers in computer science (ACM, IEEE, Springer) all charge for online access(*). In addition depending on the topic (I do functional programming) there may only one or two conferences or journals for which a paper is appropriate.
(*) Though if on a university campus you may not notice if the university has already payed for you.
I was never any good at racing games. Probably because I was never able to grok that relationship even though I understand it intellectually. What games would you recommend to help someone like me learn to grok that relationship?
Is there some easy way I could become "UC-Affiliated" without actually having to become a student/professor there and thus get my papers published under an open license?
It has always bothered me that the papers I publish get locked up in "digital libraries" and inaccessible to most of the world when a major point of academia is spreading ideas. In the past Springer has been particularly egregious in this regard. Maybe this will be a step in the right direction.
Which doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. "Him too" is not a defence in law.
Actually Laches could be a defense. If the plaintiff did not sue other entities that engaged in this practice and then the defendant on seeing that the plaintiff didn't sue also engaged in that practice but the plaintiff suddenly decided to sue the plaintiff but not the other entities, then the defense could claim a laches defense.
(That is in theory, however the facts of this case probably don't support laches because (1) google/yahoo/etc are not competing with the newspaper but the other newspaper is thus it is a slightly different act and (2) laches requires that the defendant to suffer some harm from the "trick" of not suing for a long time and then suing.)
Regardless of the above they might still have a defense under fair use or at least be able to modify their reporting to make it fair use. Regarding the four tests for fair use, they will most certainly lose on the first test (commercial nature), but on the second (nature of work: news/facts), third (amount: one sentence) and fourth (commercial impact: more viewers on page thus more advertisement revenue) tests they could win.
Agreed, but since this is High School, the parents should file the complaint. If the student can get his or her parents on board and they present a unified front, then there is a bit more ammunition to work with.
In USA "anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes".
Slashdot Mirror
A voting system should not be judged by whether it is fair, but by whether it results in equitable compromises among the interested parties.
Having been involved in national level voting bodies with ~400 voting members, I can tell you that if you get much larger, there are serious problems of scale that crop up. Even at ~400 it is a hard task and the problem grows super-linearly (quadratic?).
If that is what you believe then *amend* the Constitution. Don't try this end-run that attempts to subvert it with accounting tricks. Doing it this way without a proper amendment effectively prevents people from other states from having a say in whether this is even a good idea. This is a textbook case of Tyranny of the Majority.
So you are going to trade ignoring big population centers for ignoring every where but the big population centers? You're still ignoring major segments of the population, you've just changed which ones.
Why shouldn't I be able to run a membership-only website and then broker a deal to provide automatic membership to an ISP's customers?
Both ACM and Springer already do this. Even though I hate that they do this (it gets annoying when I'm off campus), I can't find a good moral or legal reason why they can't.
Well put and this is exactly why more laws should be state level and not federal level.
the beliefs aren't all that far off of any other "Christian" faith
Except for the whole "One God" thing.
(For those who don't get the reference. Mormons believe that "God" wasn't born god but rather ascended (like they claim we will) to become god and that there are thus many gods.)
Next thing you know their EULA will say you must run the software for a minimum of 8 hours a day.
Please don't give them any ideas. They might think this would be a good way to get more seeders.
it's time for some basic "global laws."
Global laws mean there is nowhere to flee to when bad laws get passed.
Please tell me how. I've gotten stuck as Admin on my home machine needing SYSTEM so many times.
Unless what it wants requires SYSTEM privileges. SYSTEM is a higher level than Administrator on Windows (which can be rather annoying when I need to do something requiring SYSTEM privileges).
Could you please elaborate? I am familiar with basic OpenGL (i.e. glBegin( GL_POLYGON ); glColor3f(...);glVertex3f( -1, -1, 0 );glVertex3f( -1, 1, 0 ); etc.; glEnd()). Is that what you are referring do by "fixed function immediate mode"?
Why is "fixed function immediate mode" so bad? What sort of functionality is better and why?
I confess that I might be just the sort of monkey you are complaining about but I'd be interested in guidance on learning how to not be a monkey or at least understanding what it is that I don't understand yet.
No space-age materials necessary. A very thin, white sheet will blur the "reflection" it has of a lamp that is 6 feet away from the sheet much more than it will blur the transmitted image of a lamp (i.e. pixels) pressed flush up against it. (I'm not sure whether this effect would be technically called diffusion.) Therefore claiming that one is within human perception limits says nothing about whether the other is.
You are confusing two different effects. One causes blurry(matte) versus sharp(glossy) reflections and the other causes blurry versus sharp transmitted images. These are different effects and one does not imply the other. They are governed by very different laws (*). The ideal display surface would have blurry reflections but sharp transmitted images (sort of like how paper works).
The first is the diffusion of incoming light that gets reflected back. This is due to a spread in the angle at which incoming light gets reflected. That is to say the the reflection is mostly a diffuse reflection rather than a specular reflection. This effect is measured by a gloss meter and unsurprisingly will determine how mirror-like the surface is.
The second is translucent diffusion of outgoing light. (This is where I wish I could draw you a picture.) A blurry image happens when there is both a spread in angle of exit and there is a spread in position of exit. With the pixel element placed up against the matte surface and the surface sufficiently thin the spread in exit position will be kept low (i.e. below human perception). The way you would measure this is to capture high resolution images of adjacent pixels. If pixels overlap, then the image will be blurry, otherwise the image will be sharp.
To sum up, these are very different effects due to different physical laws that behave in different ways are are influenced by different factors. So you can't assume that one effect being within human perception will imply that the other effect will also be within human perception. This concept that matte necessarily must be blurry is complete nonsense. At best you could claim that current matte technology has a problem with blurriness but since that is an empirical claim not necessarily required by any physical law you are going to have to back it up with a citation.
(*) Angle of reflection is completely different than the amount of bending of light passing between two different mediums.
Glossy displays really do allow for a slightly clearer/sharper image, since the light from the display isn't being scattered at much.
[citation needed]
I'm serious. Find a study that objectively measures how much one pixel gets scattered by a matte screen. If it is anything less than 10% (*) of the size of a pixel, then that effect is probably below the human perception threshold. Even if larger it may still be below the perception threshold.
(*) At reading distances (12"-24") humans can see at a resolution around 700 dpi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution#Ocular_resolution
Why then did a matte screen (the W700) have the largest color gamut?
Um, like who? The three biggest publishers in computer science (ACM, IEEE, Springer) all charge for online access(*). In addition depending on the topic (I do functional programming) there may only one or two conferences or journals for which a paper is appropriate.
(*) Though if on a university campus you may not notice if the university has already payed for you.
This phenomenon seems to be common enough that there need to be a name for it if there isn't one already.
(I've had the experience with Chess (forming pawn islands), Othello/Reversi (flanking) and a few video games.)
I was never any good at racing games. Probably because I was never able to grok that relationship even though I understand it intellectually. What games would you recommend to help someone like me learn to grok that relationship?
Is there some easy way I could become "UC-Affiliated" without actually having to become a student/professor there and thus get my papers published under an open license?
It has always bothered me that the papers I publish get locked up in "digital libraries" and inaccessible to most of the world when a major point of academia is spreading ideas. In the past Springer has been particularly egregious in this regard. Maybe this will be a step in the right direction.
Which doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. "Him too" is not a defence in law.
Actually Laches could be a defense. If the plaintiff did not sue other entities that engaged in this practice and then the defendant on seeing that the plaintiff didn't sue also engaged in that practice but the plaintiff suddenly decided to sue the plaintiff but not the other entities, then the defense could claim a laches defense.
(That is in theory, however the facts of this case probably don't support laches because (1) google/yahoo/etc are not competing with the newspaper but the other newspaper is thus it is a slightly different act and (2) laches requires that the defendant to suffer some harm from the "trick" of not suing for a long time and then suing.)
Regardless of the above they might still have a defense under fair use or at least be able to modify their reporting to make it fair use. Regarding the four tests for fair use, they will most certainly lose on the first test (commercial nature), but on the second (nature of work: news/facts), third (amount: one sentence) and fourth (commercial impact: more viewers on page thus more advertisement revenue) tests they could win.
But which State/County/City are they in?
Agreed, but since this is High School, the parents should file the complaint. If the student can get his or her parents on board and they present a unified front, then there is a bit more ammunition to work with.
I don't think you're being fair to the serial killer. Most of them aren't after spreading fear and terror. They just like killing people.
In USA "anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes".
(See http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)