I agree. I want the highest possible screen. Wide screens appear to be catering to movies, games, and the dishonesty of diagonal measurements (a wide screen gets a greater diagonal measurement than a square screen with the same number of pixels). Documents are best viewed with vertical space.

People keep saying this, but it involves two different meanings of a signal with content below 20 kHz. The Nyquist theorem says (correctly) that, for an infinite number of perfectly accurate samples at S Hz, there is only one signal agreeing with those samples and containing Fourier components all below S/2 Hz. Fourier components are infinitely long sine waves, with no variation in frequency or amplitude. People hear components that are modulated sine waves with carrier frequency below (for most of us, far below) 20kHz. "Modulated" means that the amplitude and/or frequency (usually both) vary. Fourier components of a signal with arbitrarily high frequency affect the modulation of audible components with arbitrarily low frequency. Whether the effect on that modulation is audible is a very subtle thing, quite difficult to measure, and not completely known at present.

The best possible signal reproductions at different sample rates are not identical, so of course you can't prove such a falsehood mathematically. The argument is that they are indistinguishable in human perception. That's a very difficult thing to study, with many variables that are hard to control.

A modulated (varying frequency or amplitude) signal with an audible carrier frequency has Fourier components of unboundedly high frequency. These components can, and sometimes do, have an audible effect on the modulation. The value of >44.1 KHz sampling is debatable, but it's not dismissable mathematically.

Put another way, the "components" below 22.05 KHz that are preserved by 44.1 KHz sampling are the infinitely long unmodulated sine waves of Fourier analysis. The "components" that we hear are modulated sine waves. Cutting off the Fourier components above 22.05 KHz changes the modulation of the audible components below 22.05 KHz. Whether that change is perceptible depends on deep study of human perception, not on the mathematics of sampling.

The problem is that the genetic code alone isn't a programming language.

The genetic code is indeed a programming language. It was designed by evolution, while the artificial programming languages for digital computers were at worst (Ada?) designed by government-appointed committee. The user's manual hasn't been written yet, and of course the notion that we know how to program a prehensile tail is a joke. We know how to program sequences of amino acids. We know that there are conditional mechanisms, but they are more numerous and trickier than if ... then ... else. We can learn a lot, but not by a long shot everything, by investigating the control mechanisms in nucleic acid expression, using insights that were stimulated by computer programming languages.

deceived a generation of computer scientists into thinking biology is easy to understand and hack

Sigh. Can we stop extrapolating useful ideas in silly ways in order to ridicule them, and put more effort into squeezing out insight in many different ways? I have met a few thousand computer scientists, and not one of them expressed such an opinion, or anything near to it. It was certainly not the spirit in which I understood Sussman. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone who thinks that computer programming languages are easy to understand and hack, so the notion doesn't even start with computer languages much less carry over to an attitude about biology.

In the late 1980s or 1990ish, I attended a meeting sponsored by the National Science Foundation, to promote interaction between biologists and computer scientists. Much of the discussion focussed on designing algorithms and producing programs to answer questions posed by biologists. That part of the discussion was dominated by laments: biologists describe problems, computer scientists create programs to solve them, biologists find that the solution isn't really what they wanted.

Gerald Sussman (MIT, creator of Scheme) was at the meeting. At one point he got excited, and captured the podium. Alas, there is no transcipt, but here's my paraphrase of his inspiring speech:

Writing programs to serve biologists is cool as far as it goes, but our collaboration should cut much deeper. The genetic code is a programming language, and we should help biologists figure out the structure of the programs written in the alphabet of the bases. What I really want is the Emacs mode to edit the genome, so I can give myself a prehensile tail.

I have a great memory. I remember good stuff, and some of it happened. Please don't blame Mr. Sussman for any idiocies in my paraphrase. Maybe I projected the prehensile tail from my own repressed desires. But, I do think Mr. Sussman deserves great credit for observing the deep conceptual connections between CS and genetics at a time when very few of us thought beyond the idea of writing computer programs to help solve genetic problems.

But they already know the IP address, and since they named someone that means they must have already contacted the ISP and found the subscriber.

That's an interesting assumption, but the decision explicitly says that Plaintiff provided no information (no allegations) regarding the connection between Defendant and the given IP number. Plaintiff did not state whether the number is assigned to Defendant by some ISP, according to the judge Plaintiff merely mentioned the number. The segment that you quoted was part of the judge's explanation of further information required to justify proceeding in the suit, but was not part of a dismissal. He asked Plaintiff to reveal Plaintiff's information about Defendant's relation to the IP number cited. According to the article, Plaintiff withdrew the suit without ever providing that explanation.

E.g., instead of this being a case, as you "suspect," of "geeks want to be able to downlad everything they can for free," it might just as well be a case of Plaintiff having made a clerical error, accusing the wrong Defendant, and withdrawing the suit when that error became apparent. Since Plaintiff did not reveal the connection that he alleged between the IP number and Defendant, we don't know what it was, much less whether it was correct. The judge merely required Plaintiff to reveal that information.

The only way that a Plaintiff could obtain the evidence needed is with a subpoena. The judge dismissed the case before allowing any subpoenas to occur.

That's not what the decision says. The judge did not dismiss the 2 copyright infringment claims. He did not require evidence. He required before proceeding that Plaintiff reveal information, which Plaintiff claimed to possess already, linking Defendant to the IP number. Plaintiff dropped the suit without revealing that information. Subpoenas are by no means neccesary for all forms of investigation. There was no indication of a request for a subpoena of ISP registration information. The judge noted that Plaintiff had not even stated that the IP number in question was registered in any way to Defendant. Accepting the judge's statement (I did not check it against the actual complaint), Plaintiff merely mentioned the IP number, alleged that it was involved in an alleged copyright violation, accused Defendant of that copyright violation, but did not even mention any alleged connection between Defendant and the IP number, much less any other detail regarding Defendant's actual behavior. The judge did not require evidence, merely plausible statement of the evidence that Plaintiff expected to produce.

MobyDisk:

This ruling says that they must tie it to an individual, but they are not allowed to do any investigation that would help them in doing that.

I have hunted the 7-page decision in vain for the spot where the judge forbade Plaintiff "to do any investigation that would help ... ." The judge merely required Plaintiff to mention some alleged facts that, if proved, would associate Plaintiff with the alleged copyright infringment. According to the decision, Plaintiff merely mentioned an IP number, and did not even claim that it was associated with a service subscribed to by Defendant. Plaintiff was at liberty to do all sorts of other investigation, or merely to share with the judge the details of earlier investigation. Until then, the Plaintiff would be unable to demand that Defendant or other parties (such as ISP) do the investigation for Plaintiff under the rules of discovery.

MobyDisk:

The problem is that the judge forbids discovery. Apparently no one on Slashdot knows what that means. It means that they are forbidden from obtaining any more evidence or doing any more research.

Well, I do know what "discovery" means (Wikipedia entry). The judge indicated that Plaintiff had not explained allegations well enough to justify certain types of discovery. By no means did he say "that they are forbidden from obtaining any more evidence or doing any more research." "Discovery" means requiring others, including the opposition, to deliver information that may support the case. Plaintiff had, and was apparently already using, other means of obtaining evidence and doing research. As I understand the decision, Plaintiff must explain a plausible case well enough to justify placing that burden upon others, and the judge ruled that Plaintiff had not done so.

From the post above by MobyDisk:

The problem is that the judge forbids discovery. Apparently no one on Slashdot knows what that means. It means that they are forbidden from obtaining any more evidence or doing any more research.

I hunted through the judge's decision, and could not find where he forbade discovery. I found that he required some alleged facts actually connecting the defendant to the alleged infringement. He didn't require evidence at this stage, merely a statement of a plausible specific claim that the Plaintiff possessed some evidence associating the Defendant with the alleged copyright infringement. From the judge's decison, a footnote:

In its Opposition, Plaintiff states in a footnote that “Plaintiff’s allegations and identification of Defendant are based off of much more information than a lone IP address . . . .” Plaintiff does not, however, specify what information it has.

It appears to me that the judge was requiring Plaintiff to explain in a bit of detail the reason for associating the defendant with the alleged copryight infringement. Elsewhere, the judge mentions that the Plaintiff has not even alleged specifically that the IP address in question is associated in any particular way with Defendant:

Indeed, the FAC does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IPaddress 68.8.137.53. (The Court notes that it is actually unclear whether the IP address is registered to Defendant).

So, it appears (pending a reading of the complaint, to see whether the judge described it correctly) that Plaintiff sued Defendant, mentioned "68.8.137.53" as though this were relevant, but did not explain the connection between that number and Defendant, and the judge required an explanation. There is more in the decision to indicate that a mere registration of the number would not suffice, but no indication at all that Plaintiff's ability to discover additional facts is actually inhibited if they can provide a plausible explanation.

From the judge's decision:

To the extent that Plaintiff’s negligence claim alleges that Defendant failed to properly secure his internet connection or failed to properly monitor the use of his secured internet connection by others, Plaintiff’s claim fails because there is no underlying duty. One who fails to act to protect another is generally not liable for breaching a duty unless there is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act. Mid-Cal National Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 590F.2d761, 763 (9th Cir. 1979). There is no special relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant which gives rise to a duty on the part of Defendant to ensure, through heightened security measures and hawkish monitoring of internet usage, that nobody uses his internet connection to infringe Plaintiff’s copyright.

This part of the decision applied only to claim 3 of negligence, which was dismissed, not to claims 1 & 2 of copryight infrigement, which were held pending further information. It appears to nix the notion that individuals are required to police Internet connections for which they subscribe, and take liability for the behavior of other users.

I'm drinking some right now. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_(beverage)

I think it tastes more like wet hay than thistle. Of course, if you don't drink it, there will be a better supply for me.

Cruz de Malta appears to be the standard choice, but I prefer Rosamonte Seleccion Especial, which has a stronger flavor. I think that the best deals are to be found online. Order the yerba (the weed itself) in 1 kilo bags, 10 or 12 at a time to amortize the shipping cost, which is usually too high for a single bag.Get a nice mate (=cup=gourd) and bombilla (straw with strainer). After some experience with fancier ones, I prefer the simplest gourds with no decoration. They usually come with a bit of pulp, that you need to soak and scoop out with a spoon. Part of the ritual.

Cheerio,

Mike O'Donnell

Communication with a single word has already been implemented in the land of Og: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_World_of_Og

I have offered free open wireless Internet to my neighbors and passersby for many years, with no problem. Occasionally, I see a car parked in front of my house to use the connection. It's the good neighborly thing to do. Those who are more stingy and/or fearful need not follow suit, but they need not spew negative speculation about those of us who do. Bruce Schneier, security expert, does the same. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/my_open_wireles.html