I wonder if the results would have been any different had the Judge allowed the lawyers to see all 360 degrees of the device, and not just the front. Something tells me the SAMSUNG logo emblazoned on the device would assist in differentiating it from the iPad.
I hack Wii games in my spare time. Cheat codes, like infinite life and infinite health but more complex.
It really is a game in itself. How will you find your health value? Is it a float or an integer? 16-bit or 32-bit integer? How can you make yourself invincible while still allowing enemies to die? What is this piece of ASM trying to do with my health value?
You can do some pretty crazy things. One fellow Wii hacker made the F-Zero GX game into a 3D game, by finding the camera object in memory and manipulating it so that it wiggles back and forth every frame, creating left- and right-eye images.
The polar bear population was estimated in the 50s and 60s to be 5k-10k. This was based on anecdotal evidence of hunters and explorers, so it likely underestimates the population back then. Today, it's estimated to 20k-25k. That is not even one order of magnitude, let alone several.
Additionally, a scientific analysis of polar bear sub-populations shows that the number of increasing sub-populations is declining (only 1 of the 12 sub-populations with sufficient data is increasing), the number of stable sub-populations is declining (3 now), and the number of decreasing sub-populations is growing (8 now); 7 sub-populations lack sufficient data.
That suggests population loss is accelerating - even after they are listed as a threatened species.
The start menu doesn't have an explicit Run dialog, but you can still Windows Key + R to open the Run dialog. I prefer the Run dialog because it caches recent entries.
I did find a 47 page paper with plenty of graphs, but I have no idea which one you're talking about, so that makes it somewhat difficult to refute your assertion.
Despite this, I feel compelled to point out that his paper focuses on short-term variations in atmospheric CO2. This is why there appears to be no correlation - El Nino sources 20-30x as much CO2 as humans do, while La Nina sinks about as much CO2 as El Nino sources; El Nino and La Nina are in equilibrium. Naturally over the short term, because El Nino dwarfs human CO2 emissions, it will look like human CO2 isn't correlated with atmospheric CO2 at all.
Once you go long-term so that El Nino and La Nina cancel each other out, you will see the correlation of human CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What does distinguishing the source of CO2 have to do with anything? This is called a red herring fallacy.
CO2 sinks have some finite amount of sinking ability. CO2 sources have some finite amount of sourcing ability. Over the long term, these finite values are roughly equal, even if over the short term they aren't.
Human CO2 emissions throw this equilibrium out of whack, like the bank which is constantly deducting $1 a month in fees. You don't know for sure that a given dollar that you put in will go to the bank's fees or your bills, but the money is coming out of your account either way.
Certainly, some human CO2 emissions will be sunk by natural means...and a corresponding amount of natural CO2 that would have been sunk now remains in the atmosphere.
Since no one else has explicitly debunked this yet...
Yes, it is true that human emission of CO2 is dwarfed by natural emissions, which dominate the variability in CO2 emissions on a short-term annual basis. However, natural CO2 emissions are in equilibrium with natural CO2 sinks, so the long-term trend is more neutral. The human CO2 emissions have no corresponding CO2 sink, and therefore continually add a little bit of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.
Think of it like this. You get a paycheck for $2k every two weeks. Some months you pay a higher gas bill (winter), some months you pay a higher electric bill (summer), some months they're both low (spring, fall). Despite these short-term month-to-month variations, on a long-term basis you make about the same amount of money annually.
Now let's assume that your expenses and your income have reached equilibrium. You make $2k every two weeks, and spend $2k every two weeks. Now let's say that once a week, the bank deducts $1 from your account. $1 is insignificant compared to your bi-weekly income and expenses. And yet, over the long term, these $1 deductions will gradually make you go bankrupt.
So in summary, even though human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural CO2 emissions, they will add up in the long term.
one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs
A significant portion of health care costs is wrapped up in dealing with the administrative bullshit and bureaucracy. A single provider would streamline a lot of administrative work, potentially reducing costs. It's called standardization, and without it, much of our technology never would have matured.
The planet where Obama claims the power to assassinate US citizens with no due process.
The planet where Obama promotes indefinite detention without habeas corpus rights.
The planet where Obama chooses to use military commissions to try terrorists, in contrast to just about every other country which tries terrorists in criminal courts in the city which was attacked.
The planet where Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.
The planet where Obama has imposed harsh, pre-trial punitive measures for an Army private, including solitary confinement for almost a year, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and Article 10 of the UCMJ.
The planet where Obama ditches proper progressive principles for health care in favor of a mandate which will be a boon to private industry.
The planet where Obama....aw, hell, you get the point.
However, the primary magnetic field in an MRI does not move. In fact, it must be as uniform as possible, and shims are used to make sure that the field homogenous.
The gradients change the field, but by orders of magnitude less than the primary field.
I agree with most of your post. I've been in a scanner a few times, and I knew a guy who has had probably in excess of 100 hours being scanned. I also know a lot of people that regularly go into the magnet room. The only issue anyone has ever had involved moving their head rapidly through the field.
I disagree with fMRI point, though. An fMRI usually involves a control task (e.g. read these words but don't talk), and an experiment task (e.g. read these words and say them aloud). Then the images collected are analyzed for differences, and those differences would represent areas of the brain involved in e.g. speech. Any nystagmus effect would be present in both images, and would therefore be canceled out.
I think everyone knew that physically moving through the magnetic field can cause physiological responses. What surprised me is that even for a stationary subject, there's a physiological response.
Unfortunately, the article is VERY light on details. It doesn't even say how strong the scanners were. Can they recognize this effect in a 1.5T? In a 3T? I would certainly believe as you get up to 7T that some strange shit can happen.
You're fucking stupid and you can't type, either (equably, lol).
Biologists and engineers know that sufficiently large magnetic fields can affect living tissue. There are YouTube videos of living frogs levitating inside a 10T bore.
Biologists and engineers ALSO acknowledge that RF has an effect on living tissue. This effect is otherwise known as "heat".
You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.
oops, my bad. Laser rangefinders measure the round-trip reflection. Infrared rangefinders typically use triangulation. I assumed (wrongly) that infrared rangefinding worked the same way as laser rangefinding.
The PIC24F series has a CTMU which is very useful for measuring time periods 1ns on a processor with an instruction clock running at 16 MHz. When the first pulse goes out, it starts charging a capacitor with a constant current. When the reflection pulse returns, it stops charging the capacitor. And ADC then converts the collected charge's voltage into a digital value which is proportional to the amount of time it took for the pulse to return.
An oscilloscope with a bandwidth of 1 GHz or more. Such scopes are not terribly expensive, about $10k or so.
Consider that infrared rangefinders with a range of a few feet measure the latency between the transmission of an IR pulse and the return of its reflection.
In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006
..the terrorists fly in from Paris (Richard Reid, aka shoe bomber) or Amsterdam (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka underwear bomber), where there is no TSA, no groping, no naked scanners, etc.
When you seriously think about it, the TSA is rather pointless. They can't stop terrorists from flying into the US because they only exist at US airports. They can only stop terrorists who are already inside the US and trying to get on a plane. Problem is...they're already inside the US. At that point, they can pull a Nidal Hassan or a Faisal Shahzad.
We already struggle to meet the agricultural need for water with irrigation. The boost in CO2 would be useless if there wasn't a commensurate boost in every other resource that plants use.
As far as your claim that roads cause more heating than CO2, excuse me for being skeptical about that until you provide some substantial evidence. In the mean time, I suggest comparing the albedo of asphalt (0.04 to 0.12) to your average conifer forest (0.08 to 0.15). In other words, heat trapped by roads is comparable to heat trapped by trees.
What a pathetic strawman. "warming is bad mkay"? Are you for real? Go read some actual literature from climate scientists, not the caricature offered up by propaganda machines funded by parties with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
A true climate scientist would not say "warming is bad", but instead might say something more like there is a very narrow range of global climates in which humanity has prospered, and climates which are too hot or too cold could have devastating consequences on human societies around the globe.
For that matter, you seem to think that global warming is the only effect of climate change. I have another, much better example of climate change - ocean acidification.
It is not, at all, about telling other people what they can and cannot do.
So if I take the source of gcc and modify it to do something new, the GPL places no requirements or restrictions on what I can or cannot do with my derivative work?...riiiight.
The GPL is not about freedom at all. It's about enforcing control over derivative works. It is like a virus; if a single line of GPL code enters a product with millions of lines of non-GPL code, that one line means you are required to distribute all of your source code. The GPL is precisely about telling you what you can and cannot do with derivative works.
The "spirit" behind this is that the GPL protects you when you release your code. What exactly does it protect you from? If Microsoft incorporates BSD-licensed code into a product, is that code now proprietary? Of course not. The original BSD licensed source code will ALWAYS be accessible, regardless of how it is acquired, and anyone is free to modify as they see fit. And there are no restrictions on what you can or cannot do with such modifications.
Ironic that the "Lesser" GPL actually has More Freedom, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the results would have been any different had the Judge allowed the lawyers to see all 360 degrees of the device, and not just the front. Something tells me the SAMSUNG logo emblazoned on the device would assist in differentiating it from the iPad.
iPad 2 - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UTeQhQcvdNU/TPGrM-2_lVI/AAAAAAAAF20/U7xNqZ0as4s/s1600/things-about-apple-ipad-2.jpg
Galaxy Tab - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UTeQhQcvdNU/TProAcaIpnI/AAAAAAAAF5M/wtS26PrDbeU/s1600/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-4.jpg
Can you tell the difference?
I hack Wii games in my spare time. Cheat codes, like infinite life and infinite health but more complex.
It really is a game in itself. How will you find your health value? Is it a float or an integer? 16-bit or 32-bit integer? How can you make yourself invincible while still allowing enemies to die? What is this piece of ASM trying to do with my health value?
You can do some pretty crazy things. One fellow Wii hacker made the F-Zero GX game into a 3D game, by finding the camera object in memory and manipulating it so that it wiggles back and forth every frame, creating left- and right-eye images.
You are incorrect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm
The polar bear population was estimated in the 50s and 60s to be 5k-10k. This was based on anecdotal evidence of hunters and explorers, so it likely underestimates the population back then. Today, it's estimated to 20k-25k. That is not even one order of magnitude, let alone several.
Additionally, a scientific analysis of polar bear sub-populations shows that the number of increasing sub-populations is declining (only 1 of the 12 sub-populations with sufficient data is increasing), the number of stable sub-populations is declining (3 now), and the number of decreasing sub-populations is growing (8 now); 7 sub-populations lack sufficient data.
That suggests population loss is accelerating - even after they are listed as a threatened species.
The start menu doesn't have an explicit Run dialog, but you can still Windows Key + R to open the Run dialog. I prefer the Run dialog because it caches recent entries.
I looked at the link for a graph, but found none.
I did find a 47 page paper with plenty of graphs, but I have no idea which one you're talking about, so that makes it somewhat difficult to refute your assertion.
Despite this, I feel compelled to point out that his paper focuses on short-term variations in atmospheric CO2. This is why there appears to be no correlation - El Nino sources 20-30x as much CO2 as humans do, while La Nina sinks about as much CO2 as El Nino sources; El Nino and La Nina are in equilibrium. Naturally over the short term, because El Nino dwarfs human CO2 emissions, it will look like human CO2 isn't correlated with atmospheric CO2 at all.
Once you go long-term so that El Nino and La Nina cancel each other out, you will see the correlation of human CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
What does distinguishing the source of CO2 have to do with anything? This is called a red herring fallacy.
CO2 sinks have some finite amount of sinking ability. CO2 sources have some finite amount of sourcing ability. Over the long term, these finite values are roughly equal, even if over the short term they aren't.
Human CO2 emissions throw this equilibrium out of whack, like the bank which is constantly deducting $1 a month in fees. You don't know for sure that a given dollar that you put in will go to the bank's fees or your bills, but the money is coming out of your account either way.
Certainly, some human CO2 emissions will be sunk by natural means...and a corresponding amount of natural CO2 that would have been sunk now remains in the atmosphere.
Since no one else has explicitly debunked this yet...
Yes, it is true that human emission of CO2 is dwarfed by natural emissions, which dominate the variability in CO2 emissions on a short-term annual basis. However, natural CO2 emissions are in equilibrium with natural CO2 sinks, so the long-term trend is more neutral. The human CO2 emissions have no corresponding CO2 sink, and therefore continually add a little bit of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.
Think of it like this. You get a paycheck for $2k every two weeks. Some months you pay a higher gas bill (winter), some months you pay a higher electric bill (summer), some months they're both low (spring, fall). Despite these short-term month-to-month variations, on a long-term basis you make about the same amount of money annually.
Now let's assume that your expenses and your income have reached equilibrium. You make $2k every two weeks, and spend $2k every two weeks. Now let's say that once a week, the bank deducts $1 from your account. $1 is insignificant compared to your bi-weekly income and expenses. And yet, over the long term, these $1 deductions will gradually make you go bankrupt.
So in summary, even though human CO2 emissions are dwarfed by natural CO2 emissions, they will add up in the long term.
one provider = higher costs. Many providers = competition = lower costs
A significant portion of health care costs is wrapped up in dealing with the administrative bullshit and bureaucracy. A single provider would streamline a lot of administrative work, potentially reducing costs. It's called standardization, and without it, much of our technology never would have matured.
The planet where Obama claims the power to assassinate US citizens with no due process.
The planet where Obama promotes indefinite detention without habeas corpus rights.
The planet where Obama chooses to use military commissions to try terrorists, in contrast to just about every other country which tries terrorists in criminal courts in the city which was attacked.
The planet where Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined.
The planet where Obama has imposed harsh, pre-trial punitive measures for an Army private, including solitary confinement for almost a year, in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, and Article 10 of the UCMJ.
The planet where Obama ditches proper progressive principles for health care in favor of a mandate which will be a boon to private industry.
The planet where Obama....aw, hell, you get the point.
I won't argue with you on that point.
However, the primary magnetic field in an MRI does not move. In fact, it must be as uniform as possible, and shims are used to make sure that the field homogenous.
The gradients change the field, but by orders of magnitude less than the primary field.
Many sites these days have projectors that allow a subject in the scanner to see an image. It can help distract from claustrophobia.
I agree with most of your post. I've been in a scanner a few times, and I knew a guy who has had probably in excess of 100 hours being scanned. I also know a lot of people that regularly go into the magnet room. The only issue anyone has ever had involved moving their head rapidly through the field.
I disagree with fMRI point, though. An fMRI usually involves a control task (e.g. read these words but don't talk), and an experiment task (e.g. read these words and say them aloud). Then the images collected are analyzed for differences, and those differences would represent areas of the brain involved in e.g. speech. Any nystagmus effect would be present in both images, and would therefore be canceled out.
I think everyone knew that physically moving through the magnetic field can cause physiological responses. What surprised me is that even for a stationary subject, there's a physiological response.
Unfortunately, the article is VERY light on details. It doesn't even say how strong the scanners were. Can they recognize this effect in a 1.5T? In a 3T? I would certainly believe as you get up to 7T that some strange shit can happen.
You're fucking stupid and you can't type, either (equably, lol).
Biologists and engineers know that sufficiently large magnetic fields can affect living tissue. There are YouTube videos of living frogs levitating inside a 10T bore.
Biologists and engineers ALSO acknowledge that RF has an effect on living tissue. This effect is otherwise known as "heat".
You mustn't be looking hard enough. Techdirt has a post with links to at least four videos of the same incident, all from different angles. With plenty of time before the cop comes up and shoots the women directly in the face with pepper spray. Even the blue shirts around him appear surprised.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/09480916110/can-nypd-back-up-its-claim-confrontation-that-required-pepper-spray-despite-more-video-evidence.shtml
If Samsung successfully strongarms more money out of Apple for F/RAND patents
"More"? I wasn't aware that Apple had licensed those patents at all. If they had, I don't think this suit would be possible.
So what you're saying is that you want Apple to be able to use Samsung's technology without paying them.
oops, my bad. Laser rangefinders measure the round-trip reflection. Infrared rangefinders typically use triangulation. I assumed (wrongly) that infrared rangefinding worked the same way as laser rangefinding.
The PIC24F series has a CTMU which is very useful for measuring time periods 1ns on a processor with an instruction clock running at 16 MHz. When the first pulse goes out, it starts charging a capacitor with a constant current. When the reflection pulse returns, it stops charging the capacitor. And ADC then converts the collected charge's voltage into a digital value which is proportional to the amount of time it took for the pulse to return.
An oscilloscope with a bandwidth of 1 GHz or more. Such scopes are not terribly expensive, about $10k or so.
Consider that infrared rangefinders with a range of a few feet measure the latency between the transmission of an IR pulse and the return of its reflection.
Nope...take a look at Portugal. They decriminalized pretty much every single drug, 10 years ago.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.
Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006
This is so insanely obvious it's baffling why at least one government hasn't tried it.
Portugal already did.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
..the terrorists fly in from Paris (Richard Reid, aka shoe bomber) or Amsterdam (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka underwear bomber), where there is no TSA, no groping, no naked scanners, etc.
When you seriously think about it, the TSA is rather pointless. They can't stop terrorists from flying into the US because they only exist at US airports. They can only stop terrorists who are already inside the US and trying to get on a plane. Problem is...they're already inside the US. At that point, they can pull a Nidal Hassan or a Faisal Shahzad.
CO2 is plant food argument, huh?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
We already struggle to meet the agricultural need for water with irrigation. The boost in CO2 would be useless if there wasn't a commensurate boost in every other resource that plants use.
As far as your claim that roads cause more heating than CO2, excuse me for being skeptical about that until you provide some substantial evidence. In the mean time, I suggest comparing the albedo of asphalt (0.04 to 0.12) to your average conifer forest (0.08 to 0.15). In other words, heat trapped by roads is comparable to heat trapped by trees.
What a pathetic strawman. "warming is bad mkay"? Are you for real? Go read some actual literature from climate scientists, not the caricature offered up by propaganda machines funded by parties with undisclosed conflicts of interest.
A true climate scientist would not say "warming is bad", but instead might say something more like there is a very narrow range of global climates in which humanity has prospered, and climates which are too hot or too cold could have devastating consequences on human societies around the globe.
For that matter, you seem to think that global warming is the only effect of climate change. I have another, much better example of climate change - ocean acidification.
It is not, at all, about telling other people what they can and cannot do.
So if I take the source of gcc and modify it to do something new, the GPL places no requirements or restrictions on what I can or cannot do with my derivative work? ...riiiight.
The GPL is not about freedom at all. It's about enforcing control over derivative works. It is like a virus; if a single line of GPL code enters a product with millions of lines of non-GPL code, that one line means you are required to distribute all of your source code. The GPL is precisely about telling you what you can and cannot do with derivative works.
The "spirit" behind this is that the GPL protects you when you release your code. What exactly does it protect you from? If Microsoft incorporates BSD-licensed code into a product, is that code now proprietary? Of course not. The original BSD licensed source code will ALWAYS be accessible, regardless of how it is acquired, and anyone is free to modify as they see fit. And there are no restrictions on what you can or cannot do with such modifications.
Ironic that the "Lesser" GPL actually has More Freedom, isn't it?
Wow, I never knew about this addon. Certainly easier than mucking around inside the XPI. Thanks.
Mozilla should shout about this thing from the top of mountains. It ought to come bundled in the Aurora build at least.