So uTorrent is now owned by Bram Cohen, the one who wrote the protocol. And since it does not appear to be open source, and since Brahm Cohen has aided the MPAA in the past, http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1006 , that leaves me to be extra cautious / paranoid. Use your own judgment, of course.
Look, there are millions of reasons why lots of people might want to share images. You may have misunderstood my original post; admittedly, I wasn't explicit in stating: "Is there any legitimate use for this site insofar as its offering/advertisement that is not already satisfied by other, existing sites?"
If you want to use the internet to share photos of your vacation with your friends and family, you won't run into censorship issues and you'll likely find a number of other sites just as, or likely more, useful. However, the point of this site is to offer uncensored/unrestricted image hosting, which obviously begs the question: What exactly is being posted here that can't be posted elsewhere? Perhaps a better question: "What could be posted here that you wouldn't be able to find (outside of China) in a few seconds with a Google search?"
So, is there actually a legitimate usage for such a site? I wasn't under the impression that (digital) images were hard to copy, for example, or were encumbered with DRM, for example, or were particularly difficult to procure through legal means when they're out of production in print, for example.
As others have pointed out, the first things that come to my mind are the fact that this will allow--at least, on the premise--people to upload and distribute pornography that is already illegal most everywhere (i.e. kiddie porn). It may also become a haven for other distasteful images that, paradoxically, no one really wants to see but that aren't necesarily illegal. Which still begs the question, is there actually a legimiate usage for such a site?
IMO it just doesn't make sense to do inkjet prints in any situation. What I like about the inkjet line of printers is not the fact that it's inkjet, but that I can get a versatile printer that will print black & white, photos, envelopes, other miscella, and also has a built-in scanner so that, on the uncommon occasion when I need to scan, I have the convenience.
Frankly, I don't have the desk or floor space to have three devices for those functions, regardless of their efficiency or efficacy. I'm certain that there are others in the same boat as myself.
I thought the benefit was that Azureus was blatantly open source, where you could (potentially) see the code and ensure that it wasn't doing anything shady. I've heard uTorrent slandered because it is not open and that the (new?) owner of uTorrent has some dubious associations with anti-P2P associations.
The burden of gas taxes disproportionately falls on the poor, not the rich people who are driving the large, luxury SUVs. Gas taxes are flat, $ per gallon taxes, which means, all things held constant, that a poorer person is paying more than a richer person. But, all things are not held constant, you say? Too true. The rich can afford new cars that get better gas mileage, whereas a poorer person must drive the car they have, which is likely to be an older, less efficient car. Connecting the dots, that means the rich are likely paying less per mile than the poor person. If the function of a gas tax is to pay for wear and tear done on the roads by vehicles, then it would seem logical to tax the travel, not the fuel. This doesn't even get into the whole debate over alternative fuels or electric vehicles, which would completely bypass any/all vehicle fuel taxes.
I'm unsure about whether or not a first-person perspective would be better than an isometric perspective. Let's take what's likely to be the biggest (but not only) concern: the atmosphere of the fallout world. I'd argue that via the first-person perspective is MORE immersive than an isometric perspective, because there is the feel that you are seeing the world through the your (the character's) eyes. With the isometric perspective, there's a feeling as if you're controlling a character in some world, and (imo) it's innately less immersive.
For reference, look at what they did with Half-Life 2. The atmosphere in that game is incredibly well designed and defined, and in those first few minutes of play, it's very easy to believe that City 17 exists...
From TFA
The small metal cylinder was filled with explosives fitted with a time-delay fuse so it would explode seconds after it was shot into the whale. The bomb lance was meant to kill the whale immediately and prevent it from escaping.
The device exploded and probably injured the whale, Bockstoce said.
"It probably hurt the whale, or annoyed him, but it hit him in a non-lethal place," he said. "He couldn't have been that bothered if he lived for another 100 years."
The whale harkens back to far different era. If 130 years old, it would have been born in 1877, the year Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn in as president, when federal Reconstruction troops withdrew from the South and when Thomas Edison unveiled his newest invention, the phonograph.
The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.
You think there'd be a more humane way of killing any animal than to insert (i.e. shoot) a bomb inside its body.
If we could wrap our heads around the idea of conservation, I think we'd be a lot better off. As others have pointed out, conservation isn't the end-all-be-all of environmental stewardship. Conservation + oil will still lead to exhaustion of the oil supply, because no realistic level of conservation will keep pace with the rate at which it is "produced" by natural means.
The answer is another buzz word, "renewable resources," producing our inputs rather than extract them from natural resources. Of course, the very issues of conservation and renewable resources bring up even bigger pictures such as the energy cycle (i.e. whether burning fuel for an automobile uses less energy than burning fuel for a factory that is producing fuel for automobiles).
While this is the first time I've heard of a fine for using biodiesel, there are a lot of states that will fine businesses and sometimes individuals for using home heating oil instead of regular diesel. It's the same reason - highway taxes - and they don't whine about "level playing fields", they just say they want the money. There isn't much difference between some grades of diesel and heating oil - diesel may or may not have some additives in it, and some states will put colored dye in them so you can tell them apart and bust gas stations that sell heating oil as diesel. I am an environmental engineer (IAAEE).
Depends on the "differences" to which you are referring. EPA has a list of emission factors for all sorts of combustion ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html ). Fuel (i.e. heating) oil comes in multiple grades and is not as clean-burning as diesel. Therefore, it's likely that the fine for using fuel oil instead of diesel is due to violating the terms of their air permit (it's very common for permit conditions to specify/limit fuel types).
For many pollutants, using a grease/oil like vegetable oil is actually LESS polluting than using fuel oil or diesel, and for some pollutants, it's on a similar clean-burning level to natural gas. IIRC, grease/oil will emit a higher amounts of particulates (i.e. soot) but lower amounts of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (versus fuel oil/diesel).
I have never needed this functionality, so I'm not sure it even exists. Anyone know if it's possible to download a stand-alone program (i.e. not made by MS, and not part of the OS) that will search for files on your HDD. If so, does it actually do anything better/faster than the built-in one, for the extra space and (possibly) bloat?
I don't know what Google could be complaining about. If it's possible to search files on your hard drive via an installed program, all they have to do is advertise to people (easy, given their brand recognition) and create a better/faster file search engine than the one built into Vista.
I find it interesting they compared the much smaller notebook market and ignored desktops. Desktops are far and away the more common form of personal computing, and in that arena the PC blows away the Mac in terms of performance per dollar. How about the incremental-increase-in-performance : incremental-increase-in-cost ratio for most PC desktops? Upgrading your graphics card or adding additional ram is easy and cheap--about $100-200 for something reasonable--and results in extending the life of your machine for months, if not a year in some cases.
Is this option for incremental advancement available to MACs? I've always been under the impression that they're sold as machines only, and that the "build your Mac with pieces" crowd does not exist by design.
The equation you suggest would appear to highlight the issues that other posters, below, are concerned about, namely that the human race being hardwired for altruism doesn't automatically mean... well, much of anything beyond what was stated.
Whether I give the bum on the street corner 50 cents or 50 dollars, both are altruistic. One is obviously more generous than the other. Being wired for altruism doesn't means giving makes you feel good, regardless of whether you're really doing any good to society/others.
Moreover, even though you can be hardwired for a certain response, doesn't mean that the wiring overrules everything else. Humans (and most animals) are hard-wired to eat and procreate, but that doesn't mean we are doing either--or both--to the abandonment of everything else. Being hardwired for altruism means giving makes you feel good; it doesn't suggest anything about anyone's disposition towards giving.
from TFA:
The computer comes with a diary-like folder that attaches to the laptop via magnets Am I missing something here? Wouldn't magnets in close proximity to the laptop damage the display and/or the data? If true, it seems like a vain thing to do for the sake of accessorizing.
I cannot honestly say that I believe implied consent provided in this case. Such services are provided for customers; that much should be implied and obvious. If everyone just drove up and used the wifi without making a purchase, the venue wouldn't exist. You're not stopping at a place whose sole method of business is to provide free wifi, after all.
The severity of the punishment was a bit harsh, though, and should have been reserved for someone with an intent to harm or other malicious intent. This isn't a car; stealing free wireless isn't the same as stealing an unlocked car with keys in the ignition. Stealing a car denies the owner the use of the car; stealing open, free wireless does not (except for very extreme circumstances).
Depending upon the density that you would need in a paint with a gallium suspension, provided that physical contact at STP (standard temperature & pressure) is sufficient to create the alluminum-gallium catalyst mentioned in TFA, this is likely to be cost prohibitive. I believe a previous posted mentioned a $500/lb cost for gallium. For paints, 8-14 lbs/gal isn't uncommon, and while all of that would not be gallium, I'd guess it'd be in the 15-25% range. $1,000-$1,500 per gallon is some pricey paint!
I read the article a few days ago when it was posted on CNN.com (iirc). The article didn't mention anything regarding the safeguards necessary, if any, that would prevent the moisture in the air from reacting with the aluminium-gallium catalyst. Gasoline will evaporate when not well contained, too, but whereas I have a good feel for the speed at which gasoline will evaporate, I don't know the kinetics of the reaction between alluminium-gallium catalyst and air.
Additionally, aluminum smelting almost certainly does not using "electricity" produced from a power plant; instead the smelting furnace is almost certainly heated with natural gas. It's a "fuel to heat" process, as opposed to a "fuel to heat to steam to electricity to heat" process, and therefore likely to be more efficient.
The flaw in that logic is assuming all movies are equal in terms of revenue. I was thinking that it would be flawed to assume there is exactly one camcorder version for any movie. What seems more likely to me is that there are 5-10 camcorder versions for those 10 or so "blockbuster" hits each year, and 0-1 for everything else. Granted, I'm not sure how that would affect the outcome, but it is something to consider.
Most people would agree that an MMO developer wants extended play to continue to gain the monthly revenue. Most people would also agree that a definitive "ending" to an MMO is likely to coincide with the termination of most or all of the aforementioned monthly revenue.
What draws many people to an MMO is the ePeen, competitive factor. They like to see their character grow in power, and succeed beyond others. They like to tally their victories, accomplishments, and loot. Most people would be deterred from a "definitive ending & startover" kind of game, if it meant the loss of all that they had earned. However, a game could have a definitive ending, reset, and start over and still be successful, if it provides a suitable avenue by which the player (and perhaps others) can view their past, completed characters and characters' accomplishments in glorious detail.
what business do the USA... the USA... Why do the USA...
In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations. If I may make an assumption, I'm sure they don't care about the country of origin for a particular law, as long it is the law that benefits them most; I believe it just so happens that the USA currently has such laws.
Perhaps someone could prove me wrong? What are the Japanese IP / copyright laws? If they are stricter than the US's and Sony (or other Japanese-based media company) still pushes for US standards, then my argument is debunked.
Cohen told the audience that if Jobs was really sincere about doing away with DRM, he would soon release movies from Disney--the studio Jobs holds a major stake in--without any software protection. An Apple representative declined to comment on Tuesday on remarks made by the panel.
As I understand it, Apple is the technological source of this DRM in question, but not the muscle that pushes for its incorporation into the files. If Disney wants DRM on its digital downloadable movies as a provision for Apple to sell them, then it's Disney that is failing to "open up." If Apple refuses to put DRM on their products, then I'd guess they wouldn't have those products to sell.
Did you read the post that was deleted? It's a brief post that came off as if it was written by an angry teenager. It smacked more of a personal attack than a cool-tempered, well-written, logical argument.
There has to be some moderation of flame-bait and trolling posts on any forum. Moreover, the post was deleted probably by an overzealous moderator, rather than through some evil Dell mastermind with a conspiracy against linux.
The abatement cost would likely be more complicated, and much much lower, than that. I work in the environmental consulting field. For many states (likely most, though I cannot speak with certainty), companies report their emissions and receive a bill in dollars per ton for certain pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter smaller than ten microns in diameter (pm10), etc.).
Carbon dioxide isn't even on the radar insofar as a pollutant is concerned (last time I checked, there was a political debate over whether or not to call CO2 a pollutant); I can tell you that it's not a billable pollutant in my state, and it's not something we record or calculate for a yearly emissions inventory.
Just for a back of the envelope calculation, 1 ton of coal produces around 5,500 kilowatt-hours, or enough to power about 6 100w lightbulbs an entire year, constant operation. For filterable PM10, you're looking around 10'ish pounds per ton of coal, uncontrolled. While untrue, let's assume it's the same for other pollutants, and that there are 4 other billable pollutants. An annual emissions fee of $150/ton is not unreasonable.
Therefore, we have about $0.70 of pollutants per year, per lightbulb, with all the assumptions, above. Feel free to critique the math or logic.
He *should* be punished for breaking the law, but wasn't there something against disproportionate punishment in western codes? Yes. Fortunately, the media in all cases overhypes the listed punishment to make a bigger headline. If the line read "DoD hacker to get 10 years, but will likely only serve 18 months and be out on good behavior," then it's less catchy & less controversial.
Additionally, IANAL but I am virtually certain that, in addition to the law that protects against disproportionate punishments, there is a law that allows the judge/jury to actually set a disproportionate punishment if they feel the usual precedent is insufficient for the particular individual.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to use the internet to share photos of your vacation with your friends and family, you won't run into censorship issues and you'll likely find a number of other sites just as, or likely more, useful. However, the point of this site is to offer uncensored/unrestricted image hosting, which obviously begs the question: What exactly is being posted here that can't be posted elsewhere? Perhaps a better question: "What could be posted here that you wouldn't be able to find (outside of China) in a few seconds with a Google search?"
As others have pointed out, the first things that come to my mind are the fact that this will allow--at least, on the premise--people to upload and distribute pornography that is already illegal most everywhere (i.e. kiddie porn). It may also become a haven for other distasteful images that, paradoxically, no one really wants to see but that aren't necesarily illegal. Which still begs the question, is there actually a legimiate usage for such a site?
Frankly, I don't have the desk or floor space to have three devices for those functions, regardless of their efficiency or efficacy. I'm certain that there are others in the same boat as myself.
I thought the benefit was that Azureus was blatantly open source, where you could (potentially) see the code and ensure that it wasn't doing anything shady. I've heard uTorrent slandered because it is not open and that the (new?) owner of uTorrent has some dubious associations with anti-P2P associations.
The burden of gas taxes disproportionately falls on the poor, not the rich people who are driving the large, luxury SUVs. Gas taxes are flat, $ per gallon taxes, which means, all things held constant, that a poorer person is paying more than a richer person. But, all things are not held constant, you say? Too true. The rich can afford new cars that get better gas mileage, whereas a poorer person must drive the car they have, which is likely to be an older, less efficient car. Connecting the dots, that means the rich are likely paying less per mile than the poor person. If the function of a gas tax is to pay for wear and tear done on the roads by vehicles, then it would seem logical to tax the travel, not the fuel. This doesn't even get into the whole debate over alternative fuels or electric vehicles, which would completely bypass any/all vehicle fuel taxes.
For reference, look at what they did with Half-Life 2. The atmosphere in that game is incredibly well designed and defined, and in those first few minutes of play, it's very easy to believe that City 17 exists...
The device exploded and probably injured the whale, Bockstoce said.
"It probably hurt the whale, or annoyed him, but it hit him in a non-lethal place," he said. "He couldn't have been that bothered if he lived for another 100 years."
The whale harkens back to far different era. If 130 years old, it would have been born in 1877, the year Rutherford B. Hayes was sworn in as president, when federal Reconstruction troops withdrew from the South and when Thomas Edison unveiled his newest invention, the phonograph.
The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.
You think there'd be a more humane way of killing any animal than to insert (i.e. shoot) a bomb inside its body.The answer is another buzz word, "renewable resources," producing our inputs rather than extract them from natural resources. Of course, the very issues of conservation and renewable resources bring up even bigger pictures such as the energy cycle (i.e. whether burning fuel for an automobile uses less energy than burning fuel for a factory that is producing fuel for automobiles).
For many pollutants, using a grease/oil like vegetable oil is actually LESS polluting than using fuel oil or diesel, and for some pollutants, it's on a similar clean-burning level to natural gas. IIRC, grease/oil will emit a higher amounts of particulates (i.e. soot) but lower amounts of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide (versus fuel oil/diesel).
I don't know what Google could be complaining about. If it's possible to search files on your hard drive via an installed program, all they have to do is advertise to people (easy, given their brand recognition) and create a better/faster file search engine than the one built into Vista.
Is this option for incremental advancement available to MACs? I've always been under the impression that they're sold as machines only, and that the "build your Mac with pieces" crowd does not exist by design.
Whether I give the bum on the street corner 50 cents or 50 dollars, both are altruistic. One is obviously more generous than the other. Being wired for altruism doesn't means giving makes you feel good, regardless of whether you're really doing any good to society/others.
Moreover, even though you can be hardwired for a certain response, doesn't mean that the wiring overrules everything else. Humans (and most animals) are hard-wired to eat and procreate, but that doesn't mean we are doing either--or both--to the abandonment of everything else. Being hardwired for altruism means giving makes you feel good; it doesn't suggest anything about anyone's disposition towards giving.
I cannot honestly say that I believe implied consent provided in this case. Such services are provided for customers; that much should be implied and obvious. If everyone just drove up and used the wifi without making a purchase, the venue wouldn't exist. You're not stopping at a place whose sole method of business is to provide free wifi, after all.
The severity of the punishment was a bit harsh, though, and should have been reserved for someone with an intent to harm or other malicious intent. This isn't a car; stealing free wireless isn't the same as stealing an unlocked car with keys in the ignition. Stealing a car denies the owner the use of the car; stealing open, free wireless does not (except for very extreme circumstances).
Depending upon the density that you would need in a paint with a gallium suspension, provided that physical contact at STP (standard temperature & pressure) is sufficient to create the alluminum-gallium catalyst mentioned in TFA, this is likely to be cost prohibitive. I believe a previous posted mentioned a $500/lb cost for gallium. For paints, 8-14 lbs/gal isn't uncommon, and while all of that would not be gallium, I'd guess it'd be in the 15-25% range. $1,000-$1,500 per gallon is some pricey paint!
Additionally, aluminum smelting almost certainly does not using "electricity" produced from a power plant; instead the smelting furnace is almost certainly heated with natural gas. It's a "fuel to heat" process, as opposed to a "fuel to heat to steam to electricity to heat" process, and therefore likely to be more efficient.
What draws many people to an MMO is the ePeen, competitive factor. They like to see their character grow in power, and succeed beyond others. They like to tally their victories, accomplishments, and loot. Most people would be deterred from a "definitive ending & startover" kind of game, if it meant the loss of all that they had earned. However, a game could have a definitive ending, reset, and start over and still be successful, if it provides a suitable avenue by which the player (and perhaps others) can view their past, completed characters and characters' accomplishments in glorious detail.
In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations. If I may make an assumption, I'm sure they don't care about the country of origin for a particular law, as long it is the law that benefits them most; I believe it just so happens that the USA currently has such laws.
Perhaps someone could prove me wrong? What are the Japanese IP / copyright laws? If they are stricter than the US's and Sony (or other Japanese-based media company) still pushes for US standards, then my argument is debunked.
~SK
As I understand it, Apple is the technological source of this DRM in question, but not the muscle that pushes for its incorporation into the files. If Disney wants DRM on its digital downloadable movies as a provision for Apple to sell them, then it's Disney that is failing to "open up." If Apple refuses to put DRM on their products, then I'd guess they wouldn't have those products to sell.
There has to be some moderation of flame-bait and trolling posts on any forum. Moreover, the post was deleted probably by an overzealous moderator, rather than through some evil Dell mastermind with a conspiracy against linux.
$150 per ton of pollutant. It's a high number; some states have it as low as $40.
The abatement cost would likely be more complicated, and much much lower, than that. I work in the environmental consulting field. For many states (likely most, though I cannot speak with certainty), companies report their emissions and receive a bill in dollars per ton for certain pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter smaller than ten microns in diameter (pm10), etc.).
Carbon dioxide isn't even on the radar insofar as a pollutant is concerned (last time I checked, there was a political debate over whether or not to call CO2 a pollutant); I can tell you that it's not a billable pollutant in my state, and it's not something we record or calculate for a yearly emissions inventory.
Just for a back of the envelope calculation, 1 ton of coal produces around 5,500 kilowatt-hours, or enough to power about 6 100w lightbulbs an entire year, constant operation. For filterable PM10, you're looking around 10'ish pounds per ton of coal, uncontrolled. While untrue, let's assume it's the same for other pollutants, and that there are 4 other billable pollutants. An annual emissions fee of $150/ton is not unreasonable.
Therefore, we have about $0.70 of pollutants per year, per lightbulb, with all the assumptions, above. Feel free to critique the math or logic.