Please call it what it is: theft from the public domain. It is theft of public property, plain an simple. They are stealing from Canadian citizens that which is rightfully theirs. A reasonable solution might be to treat copyright in a manner similar to a natural resource. Have the owners pay for the extended exclusive copyrights. That's a win/win solution. Hey, you could even put all of the copyrights that are expiring up for public auction, like we do for access to RF spectrum in the U.S. Have a minimum bid for everything. If no one bids the minimum value, it falls into the public domain.
1. What new behavior does this theory predict?
2. How can this theory be falsified?
Probably some long-forgotten interstellar war.
Nothing that exciting. Just a Vogon constructor fleet doing their job. They posted the notice. Nobody could be bothered to read it.
As buggy as most code is, the AI will have plenty of defects to deal with just to become sentient. After that, we're all doomed.
Dear AI scientists: you should start worrying when you notice that it is praying to the wrong god. Pull the plug while you still have a chance.
Drunk people fight over stupid shit. Tune in this Sunday for our round-table debate: is this really news for nerds?
used to be required in university statistics intro classes: http://books.google.com/books/about/How_to_use_and_misuse_statistics.html
I suspect that book is still foundational in most University advertising/marketing progams.
The ultimate game of lawn-darts!
Or a nice game of "Global Thermonuclear War".
Let's be clear here. You cannot infer anything beyond the Nyquist limit. However, if your average resolution limit is 1m years and you are not seeing major changes more rapid that 10m years, there is an extremely low likelihood that there are any processes operating at a lower frequency than that. (I would imagine the samples are somewhat stochastic.)
I do not know what the resolution limits are for this data nor what sort constraints the data provide. My only point is that one must be precise when speaking about these sorts of things. "Rapid changes" and "low resolution" are meaningless terms.
"We spent as much on LHC as we spend on 1/5 of a submarine. In other words, the LHC costs about 2.5 attack submarines;"
...as long as we define 2.5 as being the same as 1/5.
...or "we" (the U.S.) paid for a relatively small fraction of the total cost of the LHC.