Comment Re:What are the bounds of property? (Score 1) 166
Hmm... then your world is a subset of the real world. How fascinating to meet you.
Hmm... then your world is a subset of the real world. How fascinating to meet you.
Actually, "how high above the dirt you own" is already well defined, both in law, regulation and court cases. What is happening at the ground and a bit above on your property is yours and you can even own copyright on it. Government and individuals are not supposed to snoop on you. Fliers are not supposed to fly below 500' above you in rural areas, higher in urban areas. The result is that if someone is peeping on you in a situation where you can reasonably expect privacy you can sue them and they can also separately be fined and imprisoned by the government. The government itself is supposed to get a warrant to view you.
Just as importantly, the other logical question is how far down below the surface do you own. This is your mineral rights.
Typically in the eastern United States you own all the way down, let's say to the mantle. The exact depth doesn't get too much precedence since deep drilling hasn't been done but fracking may be changing that soon.
Out in the western United States you may well not own below your surface soil, you may well not own your mineral rights, you may well not own your water rights and you may well not even own the rain that falls upon your land. Check your deed and your state laws.
In the fourth dimension of space you own nothing. That is possibly reserved for the alternative owners who may or may not own the land you own in this variation of the multiverse. This will not appear on your deed.
In the fifth dimension (time) your ownership started at some point in the past delineated by your purchase and will end at some point in the future marked by your death or other event. Again, check your deed for the particulars.
How interesting that she, a liberal, is just now waking up to this. May they all wake up, on both sides of the spectrum, and realize the dangers.
Lip reading is a lot easier than the original poster thinks. There is a lot more data available, especially within context.
No, not at all. People were making innovative software long, long before software was patented. It didn't used to be that patents were applied to software. Patenting of software is a relatively new thing and should not be done. Hopefully we'll see the end of it. The entire patent system is abused and abusive. Time to scrap it and reset.
Such a lack of imagination is rarely seen. Remember: "Nobody will ever need more than 640KB of memory" by Bill Gates?
Apparently you missed the Apple quote that was quoted. Relax. You'll have a stroke.
So the new iOS has payment abilities to store my credit cards but it sounds like that is for when I'm physically at a store. 99% of my 'shopping' does not involve going to a physical location but is over the web via my laptop computer or in a few cases over my landline phone. There is no cellphone service around here. I never shop via my iOS device. I very rarely shop in person. I would rather just give my credit card number to the sales person over the phone or web. I've almost never had a problem with fraud and in the extremely few cases the credit card company took care of the issue. That's what you pay the fees for.
Long term records show the levels have increased and decreased before. What does it mean? Is it bad? Or is it just a distraction. There is a very real issue of toxic pollution that gets ignored in the hype over CO2.
'Legacy apps "just work".'
Apple needs to apply this to the MacOS as well. We should be able to run all legacy applications back to MacOS 1.0 and frankly iOS and MacOS should be merged such that we can run applications on either. A lot of people aren't upgrading Mac hardware because we need access to older data which is used by older applications that Apple no longer supports.
We need Legacy that Just Works.
Consensus does not make for good science. It just happens that the current consensus supports your personal views so you like it. If the consensus was against your views you would not be so happy. I prefer hard core science, consensus be damned. Science is not a popularity contest.
As to the other answers, they're just Me-Taoism: the argument that my culture did it to, did it earlier, did it better. It's as bad as political correctness.
Government doesn't get it. They don't control it. Sure, I would like to regulate the orbit of the planets but that is outside my realm. Likewise, the Canadian government is not just impotent but incompetent to think they could actually control foreign entities. Bozos.
There was a time when the scientific consensus was that the Earth Was Flat and that the Sun Rotated Around The Earth as well as many other things we now consider quaint or just plain dumb.
"- strings terminated by a binary zero rather than their physical size."
"I program in
I take it you never never worked in tight memory situations of the early processors. Just about everything people cite as example has an explanation related to the environment it occurred in. Very evolutionary. Things make sense when you understand the context. If you try you might.
Apple and other makers are screwing themselves up by obsolescing older software. I need access to my data. The applications that access my data won't run on the newer hardware on the newer operating systems. The result is I don't upgrade my hardware - I just keep making do with old hardware. I buy used computers for our businesses and family needs. I know of other people in the same boat. If the new hardware and OS can't let us use our older applications then we don't buy new. Apple and other vendors of hardware and OSs loses a lot of sales that way. They make nothing when we buy used.
Emulation is not that hard.
Keeping operating systems compatible so old software runs to give us access to our data isn't that hard.
We need backwards compatibility to move into the future.
One of the chief duties of the mathematician in acting as an advisor... is to discourage... from expecting too much from mathematics. -- N. Wiener