Let's see, where to begin with... Ok, first of all, let me say I aknowledge Heinlein as one of the great SF writers, along the lines of Asimov or Clarke. I also do agree with most of his view on personal freedom (although incest?..)
That said, a great political philosopher he wasn't. Among other inconsistencies, taking on the one hand the libertarian drivel you've quoted here (it could copypasted from Rand), and the fact he was in favor of a strong, military, central government tells me that he either didn't think further than knee-jerk reaction, or he was a conservative who wrote things he didn't believe in to sell books.
And geez, quoting "Time Enough for Love"? One of his most ridiculous books with him, through his main character, rambling on and on about things he had no real clue about (mainly, expanded sexual promiscuity). You'd have been better off quoting from "Friday" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (the Professor's speech to the Lunar assembly comes to mind)
Well, that's sound very much like Adam Ferguson's Essay.
From that point of view, beware of slipping down the path of XVIII century's concept of stages of civilization.
On my part, I would say wealth comes from the people, but it's only under a specific number of circumstances that it isn't sucked away by a small minority. The difference is that if you accept Ferguson's point of view, you accept that only the wealthy and privileged - the "better sort", to quote Madison - are real citizens. All the others simply are tools to be used, although they should be taken care of.
The point is, saying that wealth comes from the government is mistaking the source and the controler : case in point, most western societies where, to various degrees, the government has been used by a few to siphon off wealth. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that governments are evil and all that libertarian crap. But the idea of the balance of power clearly mostly has failed; since in the end a government is the ultimate power over a specific land, it also is the ultimate recourse of the people, so they MUST keep its workings under a very tight rein and they musn't believe anybody is, at any point in time, a saint who will do what is good for the others at their own expense.
That means, getting back to the actual problem of that company, if the locals have any way to say or do something about it (which I doubt, even in Northern European countries), they'd make that company keep paying its taxes where it ought to. Unfortunately, the way Europe works right now (encouraging a race to the bottom) means they probably are pretty much screwed.
Am I the only one who thinks that such a genius is bound to make major leaps in whatever field he invests himself in?
As such, the path he has chosen is good news for diseased children. However, humanity as a species isn't affected by those personnal tragedies he decided to focus on. On the other hand, there's a number of subjects in physics, genetics or even medecine that could have had a much wider impact.
Yes, I'm aware such a way of thinking classifies into the cold-hearted bastards category.
Basically, I'd say this is part of the current attempt to control any and all ways to access the internet.
Heard yesterday on the most important French national radio network, from the mouth of one person in the government, something that essentially was:"Internet is a lawless place, but fortunately we're in the process of doing something about it".
All of this, of course, to satisfy the very much entrenched IP interests.
Contrary to what may happen in the US, their rulings in such cases are completely driven by ideology (or personnal benefit which doesn't appear to the case here).
You can see this mix of the two driving forces: "competition must be upheld at all cost", and "private property is the most sacred right there is"
End result? The guilty companies are slammed with a penalty which probably amounts to less than what breaking the law allowed to rake in, and the only one who will really be hurt are the one who were screwed in the first place: the final consumer.
I have no number, but I very much doubt there is that much of a difference. Without looking back up the thread, I seem to remember the individual photon from a cellphone energy rating was around 0.0002 eV (give or take a couple of zeros). That was compared to the energy necessary to compromise the chemical bond (about 1eV, I think). Because of the difference, the OP was saying any and all effect could be debunked, whatever the number of photons hitting said cells was.
All I'm saying here is that such a demonstration is ridiculous, as there is no way you can say that there couldn't be enough photons hitting simultaneously said bond to break it. Remember that the numbers we are talking about are so huge that even a tiny statistical probability becomes significant.
So, If I understand properly, since 1 photon doesn't have enough energy to provoke a change in the molecule, the overall number of photons doesn't have any impact on the result - be it 1, 10 or 10^15.
Ok.
Silly me. And here I thought I could get a sunburn on the beach in summer. Since one single photon from the sun can't have any effect on the cells of my body, clearly I don't need to fear anything even at high noon...
I may be wrong there, but I don't think that anywhere in the rules of ebay is it written that you can put up a rent for auctions (that seems very counter logical). In other word, I'm pretty sure any buyer who doesn't comply with the rules on the ebay selling page this item sets up can tell the 'artist' to fuck off if he doesn't want to play the game.
Ah. Actually, some people are sensitive to EM waves in the Wi-Fi range.
A while back, my sister in law suddenly had headaches that came after a while when she came over to my parents' home. It took a while to test it (without telling her), but we finally realized that it happened only when the wifi network was on. It did take a couple of hours, though.
Also, they live in a pretty remote place, and that only happened when she was inside the house for a while. I couldn't say if the problem could have occured if said wireless had been on in a neighbor's house.
For most of Europe (France, in my case), in a a retail situation (i.e. I'm not talking about a specific contract , written by the lawyers of two entities on an equal footing for that occasion), there is a minimum warranty of one year. The only way the seller is allowed to change that is in making the warranty even more interesting for the buyer (longer, on site and so on). If the seller is in second hand goods, the minimum warranty is three months.
Of course, as I said, there are instances where you may get redirected toward somebody else if you have a problem. But the process had better be very clear, and the service very good, for if it's not you can always make a formal complaint and/or (much more efficient) join one of the two or three consumers associations which would do what's necessary for the warranty to be properly covered. Emphasis on "would", for I must say that in the couple of times I had to use a warranty, I never had any problem.
Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here, no matter what fine print are written inside the box, the seller is responsible and has to cover the warranty. At most, they can redirect you (at their charge) toward some subcontractor they may have to deal with problems.
I know Nicolas Sarkozy being an omnipresident and all
It's a further proof that copyright laws are being way too tentacular. Can't they just see it?
They know. They just don't care. The only important thing is to make sure that their cronies get as much as they can and as they can get away with.
That law hasn't be discussed by MPs, it's been written down by the majors and the SACEM (local equivalent to the RIAA) who don't even understand its unredeemable defects. Some MPs from Sarkozy's party may even be against it, but most don't care and they'll all vote yes since they want endorsement for the next elections.
The worst of it is that it goes against French Constitution, and the viewpoint of the EU Parliament on it to boot. Sarkozy and his buddies are just trying to force the issue. Seeing as how things have gone in the last year in France, they may even get away with it.
Well, in Sarkozy's case, he was already waaay beyond simple corruption before he was even elected president. Now he just gets to fulfill most of his fantasies.
There is a difference in what acceptable behavior between a 20-something and a 50-something is, and between an adult and a kid of age up to 16-17.
Before that age, many children have a complete disregard for social rules and niceties - if they're even aware of them. Because of that, they tend to become assholes ready to call mummy/daddy when they get the punch in the face their behavior's earned them.
That is especially true when they're faced with adults who work with them all day long, as such people are considered suspect before hand if any kind of incident crops up. This is one of the cases where presumption of innocence does not apply to the adult.
[disclaimer] Yes, I work in a junior high school and the attitude of the little bastards has become insufferable, to the point I'm currently looking to change jobs within the next few months.
Other than implementing another ribbon-like interface.
On the other hand, I think a 100% configurable ribbon style interface would be something very interesting to have in OOo. I know at least a couple of people (me included ) who'd like that.
Well, yes in a certain very distorted sense of the word there is more evidence coming out that carrying a cell phone isn't very healthy, I mean as time passes we do see more studies claiming connections between negative health outcomes and cell phone use. However, we also see more studies disputing this link.
Hence me being cautious.
For more elaboration, see my answer to the answer of ozphx.
I'll ask you what makes you so sure, since as far as I'm aware there are no high profile independent studies that have dared answered in any conclusive way.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, where to begin with... Ok, first of all, let me say I aknowledge Heinlein as one of the great SF writers, along the lines of Asimov or Clarke. I also do agree with most of his view on personal freedom (although incest?..)
That said, a great political philosopher he wasn't. Among other inconsistencies, taking on the one hand the libertarian drivel you've quoted here (it could copypasted from Rand), and the fact he was in favor of a strong, military, central government tells me that he either didn't think further than knee-jerk reaction, or he was a conservative who wrote things he didn't believe in to sell books.
And geez, quoting "Time Enough for Love"? One of his most ridiculous books with him, through his main character, rambling on and on about things he had no real clue about (mainly, expanded sexual promiscuity). You'd have been better off quoting from "Friday" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (the Professor's speech to the Lunar assembly comes to mind)
From that point of view, beware of slipping down the path of XVIII century's concept of stages of civilization.
On my part, I would say wealth comes from the people, but it's only under a specific number of circumstances that it isn't sucked away by a small minority. The difference is that if you accept Ferguson's point of view, you accept that only the wealthy and privileged - the "better sort", to quote Madison - are real citizens. All the others simply are tools to be used, although they should be taken care of.
The point is, saying that wealth comes from the government is mistaking the source and the controler : case in point, most western societies where, to various degrees, the government has been used by a few to siphon off wealth. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that governments are evil and all that libertarian crap. But the idea of the balance of power clearly mostly has failed; since in the end a government is the ultimate power over a specific land, it also is the ultimate recourse of the people, so they MUST keep its workings under a very tight rein and they musn't believe anybody is, at any point in time, a saint who will do what is good for the others at their own expense.
That means, getting back to the actual problem of that company, if the locals have any way to say or do something about it (which I doubt, even in Northern European countries), they'd make that company keep paying its taxes where it ought to. Unfortunately, the way Europe works right now (encouraging a race to the bottom) means they probably are pretty much screwed.
What I'm saying is that it is a shame for us, as a species, that his interests weren't on something with a wider impact.
As such, the path he has chosen is good news for diseased children. However, humanity as a species isn't affected by those personnal tragedies he decided to focus on. On the other hand, there's a number of subjects in physics, genetics or even medecine that could have had a much wider impact.
Yes, I'm aware such a way of thinking classifies into the cold-hearted bastards category.
Just so you know, Samsung is a South Korean company.
Heard yesterday on the most important French national radio network, from the mouth of one person in the government, something that essentially was :"Internet is a lawless place, but fortunately we're in the process of doing something about it".
All of this, of course, to satisfy the very much entrenched IP interests.
Nations like the US and EU
One mistake, there. The EU is not a nation.
Contrary to what may happen in the US, their rulings in such cases are completely driven by ideology (or personnal benefit which doesn't appear to the case here).
You can see this mix of the two driving forces: "competition must be upheld at all cost", and "private property is the most sacred right there is"
End result? The guilty companies are slammed with a penalty which probably amounts to less than what breaking the law allowed to rake in, and the only one who will really be hurt are the one who were screwed in the first place: the final consumer.
I have no number, but I very much doubt there is that much of a difference. Without looking back up the thread, I seem to remember the individual photon from a cellphone energy rating was around 0.0002 eV (give or take a couple of zeros). That was compared to the energy necessary to compromise the chemical bond (about 1eV, I think). Because of the difference, the OP was saying any and all effect could be debunked, whatever the number of photons hitting said cells was.
All I'm saying here is that such a demonstration is ridiculous, as there is no way you can say that there couldn't be enough photons hitting simultaneously said bond to break it. Remember that the numbers we are talking about are so huge that even a tiny statistical probability becomes significant.
Ok.
Silly me. And here I thought I could get a sunburn on the beach in summer. Since one single photon from the sun can't have any effect on the cells of my body, clearly I don't need to fear anything even at high noon...
I ask that because that's the very point that keeps being swept under the rug when doing a cost evaluation.
I may be wrong there, but I don't think that anywhere in the rules of ebay is it written that you can put up a rent for auctions (that seems very counter logical). In other word, I'm pretty sure any buyer who doesn't comply with the rules on the ebay selling page this item sets up can tell the 'artist' to fuck off if he doesn't want to play the game.
A while back, my sister in law suddenly had headaches that came after a while when she came over to my parents' home. It took a while to test it (without telling her), but we finally realized that it happened only when the wifi network was on. It did take a couple of hours, though.
Also, they live in a pretty remote place, and that only happened when she was inside the house for a while. I couldn't say if the problem could have occured if said wireless had been on in a neighbor's house.
Of course, as I said, there are instances where you may get redirected toward somebody else if you have a problem. But the process had better be very clear, and the service very good, for if it's not you can always make a formal complaint and/or (much more efficient) join one of the two or three consumers associations which would do what's necessary for the warranty to be properly covered. Emphasis on "would", for I must say that in the couple of times I had to use a warranty, I never had any problem.
Well, I don't know how it is in the US, but here, no matter what fine print are written inside the box, the seller is responsible and has to cover the warranty. At most, they can redirect you (at their charge) toward some subcontractor they may have to deal with problems.
Yours friends should get the "Nobel prize" for Economy:
They developed a "famous economist" software : one that is perfectly able to predict things that have already happened!
Interesting
I know Nicolas Sarkozy being an omnipresident and all
It's a further proof that copyright laws are being way too tentacular. Can't they just see it?
They know. They just don't care. The only important thing is to make sure that their cronies get as much as they can and as they can get away with.
That law hasn't be discussed by MPs, it's been written down by the majors and the SACEM (local equivalent to the RIAA) who don't even understand its unredeemable defects. Some MPs from Sarkozy's party may even be against it, but most don't care and they'll all vote yes since they want endorsement for the next elections.
The worst of it is that it goes against French Constitution, and the viewpoint of the EU Parliament on it to boot. Sarkozy and his buddies are just trying to force the issue. Seeing as how things have gone in the last year in France, they may even get away with it.
Well, in Sarkozy's case, he was already waaay beyond simple corruption before he was even elected president. Now he just gets to fulfill most of his fantasies.
Before that age, many children have a complete disregard for social rules and niceties - if they're even aware of them. Because of that, they tend to become assholes ready to call mummy/daddy when they get the punch in the face their behavior's earned them. That is especially true when they're faced with adults who work with them all day long, as such people are considered suspect before hand if any kind of incident crops up. This is one of the cases where presumption of innocence does not apply to the adult.
[disclaimer] Yes, I work in a junior high school and the attitude of the little bastards has become insufferable, to the point I'm currently looking to change jobs within the next few months.
Other than implementing another ribbon-like interface.
On the other hand, I think a 100% configurable ribbon style interface would be something very interesting to have in OOo. I know at least a couple of people (me included ) who'd like that.
It may be naïve of me, but wouldn't there be a huge difference between development cost and construction cost?
What's keeping them from buildng more than one unit?
My point is that there's no clear indication.
Well, yes in a certain very distorted sense of the word there is more evidence coming out that carrying a cell phone isn't very healthy, I mean as time passes we do see more studies claiming connections between negative health outcomes and cell phone use. However, we also see more studies disputing this link.
Hence me being cautious.
For more elaboration, see my answer to the answer of ozphx.
I'll ask you what makes you so sure, since as far as I'm aware there are no high profile independent studies that have dared answered in any conclusive way.
Nice one.