When workers become more productive, the manager is not going to stand by and let the work less for the same pay. He'll fire half of them and make the rest work twice as much. The company receives no benefit from giving workers leisure. There are always other people looking for work who'll be happy to replace any discontents, and most of the time technological advances can make up for any lack of workforce quality.
Smartphone app, as in, it has to be installed on the phone and records behavior to send off to some user approved (even if by obscure yes/no choice) observer to look for suspicious behavior trends.
The app looks at phone usage and location patterns. These tasks can very easily be accomplished by the phone company reading your call and location log. In most places this data is available to law enforcement without a warrant. So while this particular study was made with consent of its participants, it is quite possible that this is being done to each and every one of us without our knowledge or consent. Implement a few "red-flag" conditions and you've got yourself a pre-crime detector.
Collaboration: Create an online dating profile. Have your old girlfriend write a recommendation on why you're worth dating. Exploration: Ask her to rate potential new girlfriends. Creativity: Date new girlfriend. Storytelling: Tell the old one about the new one. Combat: You did say she's not into combat, right? But, just in case, hide your batleth.
> I was under the impression that energy warps space just as mass does
No it does not. Photons have no rest mass and their relativistic mass is negligible.
> I was also not aware that if you remove mass from a volume of > space the space within that volume begans to expand faster.
Imagine space as a stretched napkin. Drop a salt shaker in the middle and see the napkin take a "gravity well" shape. The edges will move inward, reducing the projected surface area. Likewise, in space, matter warps space, pulling it in toward itself and thereby shrinking the universe. Convert that matter to light and space unwarps itself, expanding the universe.
> Well, you have, so why don't you do the calculations, write a paper, and win a Nobel prize?
Considering that all my comments get modded down, I'd wager that any paper I write on this subject will not pass peer review, whether it is correct or not. As for the calculations, they have already been done and published by Randall Mills, the quack from Blacklight Power. Naturally, everyone assumes that just because he has one quack theory, everything he says must automatically be wrong. Feel free to read his book and verify his calculations (the cosmology section is not really dependent on his quantum mechanics).
Great. Science is really becoming a religion these days. Papers behind paywalls referencing non-public data. Consensus of a dozen people being considered "settled science". Comments asking honest questions being modded down, and papers questioning the "consensus" being rejected by peer review.
The reason for this was that the MACHO theory made very specific predictions that could be tested using sensitive instruments, such as gravitational lensing (remember, there is supposed to be enough to dramatically effect the amount of gravity acting on a galaxy)
So tell me why you are unable to succinctly state those reasons? Where is the data? If there is so much evidence to support nonbaryonic matter, why isn't it widely and freely available? How many people checked it and the calculations? Two?
Frankly, I am still convinced that the root of this whole problem lies in incorrectly estimating galactic mass density. I have not seen any raw data on this subject; do you know where I might get it? Just looking at a picture of a galaxy gives the impression of a more or less flat disk with density not too far from uniform. A flat uniformly dense disk will have a flat velocity curve, so my observation can't be too far off the mark. I would visually estimate that maybe half of the galactic disk would be dark matter, far less than the typical predictionsI am seeing. Something is really fishy in those calculations and I would really like to check it. Where is the data? Not released by researchers. Where are the papers? All hidden behind a paywall nobody can afford. Where is the science?
> someone would have already thought of this if it was an issue.
Then please tell me who has already thought of explaining the expansion of the universe by considering the matter-to-energy conversion occuring within stars and realizing that the disappearing matter reduces space curvature, expanding it. Accelerating star formation and total power output would thus produce accelerating expansion of the universe. Do try to find any astrophysicists who has done these calculations. I'd be very interested to read their papers.
> Simply put, because baryonic matter (ie. dust) radiates.
I don't buy that. Dust around the solar system radiates because the sun is pumping a lot of energy into it. Hot interstellar gas you see in telescope images was warmed up the same way. Dust floating sufficiently far away from any star will be cold enough to not radiate anything, not infrared, not X-ray. An unilluminated piece of rock will be invisible to you in all ways except for its gravitational influence, which is precisely what we are seeing. As such, I see no evidence rejecting interstellar dust and rocks.
As for the additional arguments based on CMB and galaxy formation, they are based on speculative models of the big bang that have no empirical evidence backing them. Sure, speculate all you wish, but whenever you try to tell me your models rule out galaxy formation, I am far more likely to consider your models wrong than as any kind of proof of existence of exotic matter.
There is also some question of the validity of gravity estimations involved in velocity curve plotting. I find it very hard to believe that I'm smarter than every astrophysicist that looked at that paper, but I'd question why the paper assumes that the gravity at point in a galaxy is equal to the point-mass equivalent of the matter contained within that radius. That result would occur if you were to use the shell theorem, but that theorem is only valid when spherical symmetry exists. In a flat galactic disk of uniform density the gravity at every point except near the center and the edges would be proportional to the local matter density irrespective of the radius, producing flat rotational curves. Again, I find it very difficult to believe that nobody has seen this before, so please try to explain to me why the paper you have linked appears to be using the erroneous calculation.
> How do I get everyone to sign and encrypt their emails as a matter of course?
Make it work transparently, that's how. Looking for people's keys is a hassle. Entering yet another password is a hassle. The solution should be obvious:
The mail client should generate a keypair for each profile, usable without a password.
Attach this public key to every outgoing email
All outgoing email should be encrypted if the recepient has a known public key and is known to be using a client that supports encryption.
This way, most email traffic will get encrypted by default without the user having to know anything about it. Without a password on the keypair you will still be vulnerable to local attacks, but anybody who wants to read your mail will now need to break into your computer instead of just being able to sniff traffic in bulk.
Yes, we can do the experiment, but most of the time we don't. Nobody gets grant money for replicating stuff other people have already done. There's no glory in it; the citations, the namings, the prestige will all go to the original experimenter, and grants are very much about glory (to the host institution, of course, not so much for the researcher herself). Yes, the big, important stuff gets replicated, but a dreadfully mundane study of some palladium catalysed reaction is not in that category, and so is unlikely to be replicated. The allegation of "made up" data in this particular paper may prompt somebody to try it in this case, but there will be many more that will slip through.
Give me any case law where liability could be assumed where software is the specific cause of the issue.
Mortenson vs Timberline is the most well-known case pertaining to EULA liability disclaimers. In the case the Mortenson company failed to win a construction contract due to a "bug" in the Timberline software it was using, and sued for damages. The court ruled that the liability disclaimer in the EULA shielded Timberline from liability for these damages. Because of this case and because most software is licensed and includes liability disclaimers in the license, we no longer have lawsuits claiming damages due to buggy software. If we did, prices of software would have become astronomical due to the need to carry liability insurance.
Who said that the person who downloaded my code (whether licensed without a disclaimer of warranty clause, or unlicensed) is a customer of mine anyway?
The Supreme Court. See the case I linked to in my original post where a customer purchased a car from a dealer and was nevertheless able to sue the manufacturer even though he was not a direct customer. In your case, github would be in the role of a dealer due to its terms of use stipulating that you agree to allow anyone to download any code you publish on the site. So even though you did not directly sell your code, the people downloading it are your customers through github, and you are liable for their damages.
On what law could anyone be able to sue me for damage on his machine if he uses my (licensed or unlicensed) code?
The tort law, under the standard of strict liability, applied to product liability. By deleting the customer's files you would be guilty of negligence. This negligence is proven first by showing that you had a duty to care for the customer's files, because you were aware that makefile commands could delete them and thus would have such a duty under the precedent of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.. You breached your duty by putting an rm command in the makefile. This breach will have been the cause of the plaintiff's lost data, and will have caused quantifiable damages such as loss of intellectual property, work stoppages, and whatever else the prosecutor can invent. So yes, you would indeed be liable. You might argue that the code was used without a license, but you'd need an expensive lawyer to make such an argument for you. You'd also need to travel to plaintiff's jurisdiction and live there for the duration of the trial. Can you afford all that? I didn't think so.
So you post your project on github without a license. Anybody using it can now sue your for whatever damages the project does to his machine. You know what I'm talking about; I know that at least once in your life you have put "rm -rf" in your Makefile, typed "make clean" and cleaned out your entire home directory because some shell variable was set to something you did not expect. Those of you with lower intelligence might have ran that on a production server and erased the company website. Now imagine somebody doing that with whatever unmaintained garbage you dumped in a github repository. You would be directly liable for any such damages, forcing you to declare bankruptcy, lose your house, your bank account, and your wife (if you have one), and die from starvation. So next time, add a license to your project. All you really need to do is copy the LICENSE file to the project directory. It will only take five seconds, and it may save your life.
So now they have switched to having just one plan that costs $50/month. That's $600/year. If they think I'm going to pay them this much they are insane. Sure, there are all these phone junkies who are on the phone all the time and are able to use a web browser on a 3" screen, but for quite a few normal people a cell phone is kept mostly for emergencies. For now I apparently can still keep using my $10/year pay-as-you go plan, but if they make me switch, I'm leaving. Where? I have no idea.
As an Arch user, I second that. Arch is not user friendly. It does not even have an installer any more; there is just an install.txt on the installation CD and you are expected to follow the instructions manually.
The reason I use it is that it takes the least amount of effort to configure the environment the way I want it, with no extra crud floating around. With a user friendly distribution you have a hundred daemons running around doing nothing but take up RAM, the startup takes five minutes, and the UI drives you nuts. And, of course, every package has a bazillion dependencies that just must be installed, so you need ten gigs on your tiny SSD just to get the damn thing up.
If you are beginner, none of these things matter to you. You probably don't know what RAM is, and are not bothered by slow startup times. So install Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever. Works out of the box and zero maintenance. You can thank me later.
"Man, we should totally invade Greece! That Alexander is a real sissy and needs a lesson." "Hear, hear! Now let's drink so we can evaluate this proposal more thoroughly!"
Yes, InternAtom requires a round trip, but only a newbie would use it often. If you have a lot of atoms (and any nontrivial X11 application does), you use the XInternAtoms call, which will stream all the requests into a single round trip. You can also use libXcb and do that to all the other calls as well. With proper design you only need 3-4 roundtrips to get your app fully loaded.
Slashdot Mirror
When workers become more productive, the manager is not going to stand by and let the work less for the same pay. He'll fire half of them and make the rest work twice as much. The company receives no benefit from giving workers leisure. There are always other people looking for work who'll be happy to replace any discontents, and most of the time technological advances can make up for any lack of workforce quality.
Which part of the computer do they expect us to pee into?
The app looks at phone usage and location patterns. These tasks can very easily be accomplished by the phone company reading your call and location log. In most places this data is available to law enforcement without a warrant. So while this particular study was made with consent of its participants, it is quite possible that this is being done to each and every one of us without our knowledge or consent. Implement a few "red-flag" conditions and you've got yourself a pre-crime detector.
Collaboration: Create an online dating profile. Have your old girlfriend write a recommendation on why you're worth dating.
Exploration: Ask her to rate potential new girlfriends.
Creativity: Date new girlfriend.
Storytelling: Tell the old one about the new one.
Combat: You did say she's not into combat, right? But, just in case, hide your batleth.
A stopped clock is perfectly stable, but is only accurate twice a day.
Then you must be smarter than a third grader. If only their was an award for being as smart as there.
It just isn't the same without the trumpet...
> I was under the impression that energy warps space just as mass does
No it does not. Photons have no rest mass and their relativistic mass is negligible.
> I was also not aware that if you remove mass from a volume of
> space the space within that volume begans to expand faster.
Imagine space as a stretched napkin. Drop a salt shaker in the middle and see the napkin take a "gravity well" shape. The edges will move inward, reducing the projected surface area. Likewise, in space, matter warps space, pulling it in toward itself and thereby shrinking the universe. Convert that matter to light and space unwarps itself, expanding the universe.
> Well, you have, so why don't you do the calculations, write a paper, and win a Nobel prize?
Considering that all my comments get modded down, I'd wager that any paper I write on this subject will not pass peer review, whether it is correct or not. As for the calculations, they have already been done and published by Randall Mills, the quack from Blacklight Power. Naturally, everyone assumes that just because he has one quack theory, everything he says must automatically be wrong. Feel free to read his book and verify his calculations (the cosmology section is not really dependent on his quantum mechanics).
Great. Science is really becoming a religion these days. Papers behind paywalls referencing non-public data. Consensus of a dozen people being considered "settled science". Comments asking honest questions being modded down, and papers questioning the "consensus" being rejected by peer review.
So tell me why you are unable to succinctly state those reasons? Where is the data? If there is so much evidence to support nonbaryonic matter, why isn't it widely and freely available? How many people checked it and the calculations? Two?
Frankly, I am still convinced that the root of this whole problem lies in incorrectly estimating galactic mass density. I have not seen any raw data on this subject; do you know where I might get it? Just looking at a picture of a galaxy gives the impression of a more or less flat disk with density not too far from uniform. A flat uniformly dense disk will have a flat velocity curve, so my observation can't be too far off the mark. I would visually estimate that maybe half of the galactic disk would be dark matter, far less than the typical predictionsI am seeing. Something is really fishy in those calculations and I would really like to check it. Where is the data? Not released by researchers. Where are the papers? All hidden behind a paywall nobody can afford. Where is the science?
> someone would have already thought of this if it was an issue.
Then please tell me who has already thought of explaining the expansion of the universe by considering the matter-to-energy conversion occuring within stars and realizing that the disappearing matter reduces space curvature, expanding it. Accelerating star formation and total power output would thus produce accelerating expansion of the universe. Do try to find any astrophysicists who has done these calculations. I'd be very interested to read their papers.
> Simply put, because baryonic matter (ie. dust) radiates.
I don't buy that. Dust around the solar system radiates because the sun is pumping a lot of energy into it. Hot interstellar gas you see in telescope images was warmed up the same way. Dust floating sufficiently far away from any star will be cold enough to not radiate anything, not infrared, not X-ray. An unilluminated piece of rock will be invisible to you in all ways except for its gravitational influence, which is precisely what we are seeing. As such, I see no evidence rejecting interstellar dust and rocks.
As for the additional arguments based on CMB and galaxy formation, they are based on speculative models of the big bang that have no empirical evidence backing them. Sure, speculate all you wish, but whenever you try to tell me your models rule out galaxy formation, I am far more likely to consider your models wrong than as any kind of proof of existence of exotic matter.
There is also some question of the validity of gravity estimations involved in velocity curve plotting. I find it very hard to believe that I'm smarter than every astrophysicist that looked at that paper, but I'd question why the paper assumes that the gravity at point in a galaxy is equal to the point-mass equivalent of the matter contained within that radius. That result would occur if you were to use the shell theorem, but that theorem is only valid when spherical symmetry exists. In a flat galactic disk of uniform density the gravity at every point except near the center and the edges would be proportional to the local matter density irrespective of the radius, producing flat rotational curves. Again, I find it very difficult to believe that nobody has seen this before, so please try to explain to me why the paper you have linked appears to be using the erroneous calculation.
> How do I get everyone to sign and encrypt their emails as a matter of course?
Make it work transparently, that's how. Looking for people's keys is a hassle. Entering yet another password is a hassle. The solution should be obvious:
This way, most email traffic will get encrypted by default without the user having to know anything about it. Without a password on the keypair you will still be vulnerable to local attacks, but anybody who wants to read your mail will now need to break into your computer instead of just being able to sniff traffic in bulk.
Yes, we can do the experiment, but most of the time we don't. Nobody gets grant money for replicating stuff other people have already done. There's no glory in it; the citations, the namings, the prestige will all go to the original experimenter, and grants are very much about glory (to the host institution, of course, not so much for the researcher herself). Yes, the big, important stuff gets replicated, but a dreadfully mundane study of some palladium catalysed reaction is not in that category, and so is unlikely to be replicated. The allegation of "made up" data in this particular paper may prompt somebody to try it in this case, but there will be many more that will slip through.
Are we asking to be invaded?
XKCD is relevant, as usual.
Mortenson vs Timberline is the most well-known case pertaining to EULA liability disclaimers. In the case the Mortenson company failed to win a construction contract due to a "bug" in the Timberline software it was using, and sued for damages. The court ruled that the liability disclaimer in the EULA shielded Timberline from liability for these damages. Because of this case and because most software is licensed and includes liability disclaimers in the license, we no longer have lawsuits claiming damages due to buggy software. If we did, prices of software would have become astronomical due to the need to carry liability insurance.
The Supreme Court. See the case I linked to in my original post where a customer purchased a car from a dealer and was nevertheless able to sue the manufacturer even though he was not a direct customer. In your case, github would be in the role of a dealer due to its terms of use stipulating that you agree to allow anyone to download any code you publish on the site. So even though you did not directly sell your code, the people downloading it are your customers through github, and you are liable for their damages.
The tort law, under the standard of strict liability, applied to product liability. By deleting the customer's files you would be guilty of negligence. This negligence is proven first by showing that you had a duty to care for the customer's files, because you were aware that makefile commands could delete them and thus would have such a duty under the precedent of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.. You breached your duty by putting an rm command in the makefile. This breach will have been the cause of the plaintiff's lost data, and will have caused quantifiable damages such as loss of intellectual property, work stoppages, and whatever else the prosecutor can invent. So yes, you would indeed be liable. You might argue that the code was used without a license, but you'd need an expensive lawyer to make such an argument for you. You'd also need to travel to plaintiff's jurisdiction and live there for the duration of the trial. Can you afford all that? I didn't think so.
So you post your project on github without a license. Anybody using it can now sue your for whatever damages the project does to his machine. You know what I'm talking about; I know that at least once in your life you have put "rm -rf" in your Makefile, typed "make clean" and cleaned out your entire home directory because some shell variable was set to something you did not expect. Those of you with lower intelligence might have ran that on a production server and erased the company website. Now imagine somebody doing that with whatever unmaintained garbage you dumped in a github repository. You would be directly liable for any such damages, forcing you to declare bankruptcy, lose your house, your bank account, and your wife (if you have one), and die from starvation. So next time, add a license to your project. All you really need to do is copy the LICENSE file to the project directory. It will only take five seconds, and it may save your life.
You can't be restored if you haven't been saved.
It should be cake. Then he'd know it's not a lie.
So now they have switched to having just one plan that costs $50/month. That's $600/year. If they think I'm going to pay them this much they are insane. Sure, there are all these phone junkies who are on the phone all the time and are able to use a web browser on a 3" screen, but for quite a few normal people a cell phone is kept mostly for emergencies. For now I apparently can still keep using my $10/year pay-as-you go plan, but if they make me switch, I'm leaving. Where? I have no idea.
Obligatory xkcd
As an Arch user, I second that. Arch is not user friendly. It does not even have an installer any more; there is just an install.txt on the installation CD and you are expected to follow the instructions manually.
The reason I use it is that it takes the least amount of effort to configure the environment the way I want it, with no extra crud floating around. With a user friendly distribution you have a hundred daemons running around doing nothing but take up RAM, the startup takes five minutes, and the UI drives you nuts. And, of course, every package has a bazillion dependencies that just must be installed, so you need ten gigs on your tiny SSD just to get the damn thing up.
If you are beginner, none of these things matter to you. You probably don't know what RAM is, and are not bothered by slow startup times. So install Ubuntu, or Mint, or whatever. Works out of the box and zero maintenance. You can thank me later.
"Man, we should totally invade Greece! That Alexander is a real sissy and needs a lesson."
"Hear, hear! Now let's drink so we can evaluate this proposal more thoroughly!"
Yes, InternAtom requires a round trip, but only a newbie would use it often. If you have a lot of atoms (and any nontrivial X11 application does), you use the XInternAtoms call, which will stream all the requests into a single round trip. You can also use libXcb and do that to all the other calls as well. With proper design you only need 3-4 roundtrips to get your app fully loaded.