Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person. That can't be correct - I understand. But it's a good starting point. Then in each case ask whether the police used lethal force to prevent further lethal violence, which is just about the only reason I see to authorize it.
Out.

Hi, AC. Yes, I understood what I wrote. Where the exponent in a function is a constant (in this case 2), that function is polynomial. An exponential function has the parameter in the exponent. The energy in a collision is not an exponential function of the speed. Sheesh, Slashdot used to be populated with geeks!

You can brush up yourself, at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentialGrowth.html

That's because I'm not offering any such calculation. OT means off-topic, right? I just pointed out that, somewhat like "literally", the term "exponentially" is being abused.

As far as calculation goes, the energy of a collision between two objects at a relative 30 mph is exactly 1.5^2 = 2.25 times larger than one between the same two objects at 20 mph, so yes, of course the damage is much larger. Nothing I wrote should be seen as favouring high speeds, rather just exact use of language.

> exponentially
Nope. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed v:
ke ~ v^2
"Exponentially" means ke ~ C^v for some constant C, which it isn't.

I thought this (though I haven't read TFA). My example would be the Enigma Secret, which is a conspiracy of sorts. There was a startling fact involving hundreds of people, and yet it was *decades* before the truth was revealed.

And then there's the whole class of ideographic allusions, somewhat like puns but with no analogue in an alphabetic written language. The character chosen to match to a particular word can carry hidden meaning within it. See for instance Graphic pejoratives in written Chinese. Although many of those racial and ethnic slurs have been eliminated, it would be really hard (and counter-productive, and wrong) to try to remove that aspect of the written language.

> What problems did you encounter when trying ReadCube for Windows in Wine?
My dear fellow, I didn't go that far off the beaten track! On clicking "Get ReadCube", I got a page that said (I kid you not) "Aw, shucks, ReadCube is not available for your platform". Aw, shucks!?? WTF, I didn't come here to be talked to in that tone of cyber-voice. As I said, BZZZZT!

Yup, me too. But mostly because ReadCube is "available for both Mac and PC", i.e. no Linux. Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

I recommend everyone to read J. Furman's judgment: it's crystal clear, and a pleasure to understand.

The argument establishes that what Baidu is engaged in is speech, not advertising or anything, I think these two quotes (or quotes of quotes) sum everything up beautifully:

'Since all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid,'" the Court explained, "one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 'what not to say.'"

As the Supreme Court has explained, "[t]he First Amendment does not guarantee that . . . concepts virtually sacred to our Nation as a whole . . . will go unquestioned in the marketplace of ideas."

what movie did you get that from?

You get to my age, some things in movies are almost as real as what really happened :)

However, this discussion on PPRuNe suggests that I didn't make it up. Several professional pilots are on there saying that it's their normal practice. Before anyone points it out, I can see that the thread is ten years old, and it may very well be that modern CVRs aren't using 30 minute magnetic tape loops.

Nobody seems to have mentioned that *pilots* would/might resist the streaming of flight data to the ground. As I understand it, there's a button in the cockpit which erases the flight deck voice recordings, and that button is one of the first things that the captain presses when the plane has landed.

What's said on the flight deck, stays on the flight deck!

Yes, as far as I can see, if you "corner" a market in BitCoin then you can control its price. A BitCoin, like a dollar or a diamond, is worth exactly what someone will pay you for it.

There was a similar flurry about virtual goods in Second Life, I vaguely recall.
Back on topic, is anyone alleging that the "real" Satoshi Nakamoto has cornered the market? If there is a real concern that the bitcoin architect could bring the edifice crashing down, I'd say that that was a good reason to stay well outside the said edifice.

... are in the business of talking up BTC, aren't they? The principle of crypto "currency" might be somewhat transformative, but I haven't yet seen any scenario in which BTC or any of the others would "fundamentally transform the economy".

@E-Rock Why do I never have mod points when someone cuts to the heart of the matter? What will be the public benefit of knowing the meatspace ID and location of the bitcoin architect? None. +1 Insightful at the very least.

> amassed a huge amount of money doing so

Well, it's more like that the early miners of bitcoin, including its inventor, *made* something that you (and several others) now want. He didn't amass money, he made something difficult (read: impossible) to forge, that now has a real-world value. Think of it like artwork.

I don't understand why anyone wants to know who Satoshi 'bitcoin' Nakamoto is. How will you be better off if you know?