Further more I would like to point out that this is a slippery slope, next its homosexuals, or transgenender, then its artists who draw erotic art, or pornstars, then its people who are argueing for the rights of these groups, then its christians because the athiests are tired of them spreading lies to their children online.
The consitutional rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness apply here. People have a right to eat hot dogs, congregate in parks and sing songs, dance along the side of the street, watch birds in a park, even if its not expressly listed. The rights of the constitution and open ended and anything not listed there is assumed to be a specific right. The bill of rights is there to limit government expressly, anything not expressily written about is assumed to be OK under the constitution.
These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.
Specific services have the right to stop them from using their products, this is the caveat.
To see why this is so, we need only look to the text of the Constitution. It defines our most fundamental rights and protections in open-ended terms: “freedom of speech,” for example, and “equal protection of the laws,” “due process of law,” “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “free exercise” of religion and “cruel and unusual punishment.” These terms are not self-defining; they did not have clear meanings even to the people who drafted them. The framers fully understood that they were leaving it to future generations to use their intelligence, judgment and experience to give concrete meaning to the expressed aspirations.
I do not condone or express any opinion on the actions of anyone on any sex offender lists, however, by shunning people and ostracising them from normal public interaction you are creating a subclass of people. These people will segregate further, and it could lead to potential psychological justification and rationalization of horrible acts in their eyes.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, I think kids should be protected in virtual space, but companies can do this by not allowing people to communicate with text or voice, or designing games with logging and allowing parents to only unlock communication with trusted friends.
It is entirely outside the bounds of the LAW to determine this, its outside of the bounds of the constitution to dictate even the use of specific applications.
This is bad, and most un-enlightened of us. We really are slipping and loosing touch with reality.
The only thing revolutionary is the control systems. Its more digitized and automated then ever before. Personally I don't like this, not very warm and fuzzy about the US nuclear commission and the state of the industry. I would like to see other designs implemented.
Last double post and to clear up one final thing, I incorrectly state and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. If you follow the links in the post above you will see:
Tolkien sold these rights to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to Zaentz in 1976
I just want to be clear. I am not perfect, nor do I hold any degrees or claim an intimate knowledge of debate, I'm speaking from my heart and personal life times experience.
Yep sorry I should have been more specific, the Hobbit. You can add George Orwell to that list. Its not the only content that has been taken out of the public domain though. Its crazy what is and is not, its pretty hard to find out for sure for some works.
As near as I can tell thats who ultimately recieves the roylaties and liscences the work. Middle Earth Enterprises has held the rights to the books since it was sold to them (see details in the 2cnd link)
Oh and to be clear I know Shatner is not the creator of Star Trek and that its originally Gene Rodenberry's creation and the rights were transfered to Paramount pictures. I also would love people to support the next movie that comes out, as the last was great and in this case I think paramount is doing a good job with the ip.
But I am trying to acknowledge that without someone owning the IP large scale projects would not be able to pay anyone for the production of movies, games, etc..
However, on a side topic, there are allot of fan projects, and fanfiction, that has allot of merit and should probably be allowed to be produced commericially and make their own money using "Star Trek" and the characters from the original series. This is incidently off topic. I know of a particular project Nichelle Nicholes was involved in that would have been great if it had more legitimacy then it did.
Your correct about the length of terms I think people would respect. As far as correctness of my statement, I did not try to make an argument as to the legality or morality of my samples actions. Just that they pirated what is technically not in public domain. If you did some research on movies alone you would be suprised at what is actually not in the public domain. My other argument is that the tighter the grip on copywright the less respect the general public has for it. I do not see the error in those particular statements.
I think most people would draw the line at 30 or 60 years, probably more likely 60, I would prefer, 30-lifetime of the author, and "the author" not who they were employed with. They could sign over temporary permit to their employer or create a contract with a publisher, but at the end of their lives, it would end.
I also like the idea posited by many that people need to renew it every 5 years or so or it lapses to the public.
I never argued that it was legal or ethical. Its pretty much no longer morally bankrupt to pirate things older then 60 years for sure. People STILL do respect some creators. The game FTL is less pirated then EA sports titles (this could also be because of a smaller audience). Minecraft has heavy pirating but it has heavy support from people who love the game and want valid copies. Some people still, thank god support some of the content creators more often indie titles, or forms of entertainment that dont implicitly rely on copywright for a monopoly (dwarf fortress). However I am not even argueing for an alternate business model, just pointing out here that without the implicit respect of copywright by the general populace, that things arent so bad and apocalyptic.
The majority of the content I know to have been downloaded or recorded are movies older then 20 years, books, and music. That does not mean there are not tons and tons of under 25 year old games and movies and songs and books out there being pirated. And I know particularly in my circle of younger friends they just dont respect movie rights. They produce their own music and could care less about that industry as well. The older people I know pirate less and buy more movies from the store. But even they are pretty grumbly sometimes. A good example would be Star Trek the original series produced from 1966-67. Personally I think it would be covered under fair use as we have purchased the movies, and payed for the series, I personally just finished watching DS9 this year on netflix. I want stuff like this to be produced. But I also know that people with busy work schedules who cant get their TV shows like Fringe, or Vampire Diaries (to name one that is horrible and of a different genre) just wont wait for it, they'll go get it, and since its broadcast or they pay for cable people feel entitled to it.
And never once did I make the argument that it was a good thing, just that its how things are, and I illustrated that someone in 1841 predicted the situation we have quite well.
It is a fairly one sided battle in the legal and political department. So I do not really fault people for just not playing fair anymore. Its definately not going to help fix the problem, but what can we do? I personally would like to see William Shatner earn what he's do for playing Kirk all those years, yet, many don't , many in Finland really couldn't even get their hands on a legit copy of Star Trek.
I really do think things can only get worse if we do not reform our laws. We already have allot of people very polarized on the issue. I personally for the first half of my life didn't care at all until I started reading allot more about it and getting points of view, for example from some of the historical text I linked. To put it in perspective.
So to re-itirate my point. Most people don't respect copywright to the full extent of the law as it is. Copywright owners and big media syndicates are unwilling to relax their stance. People are copying more shit they shouldnt be, and its because of the
I would say a combination of everything from nuclear, to biodeisal (home compost), to solar, to wind, to geothermal, nat gas, just about anything we can use to decentralize and balance load on the grids should be implemented. But we dont own the power grid infrastructure. If we did we could do allot to help fix it up and spread out the sources of power so it didnt all come from one place.
Wouldnt need as many nuclear plants, and everyone would have a little bit more say and control over what gets implemented here and there by individual community standards and planning.
What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?
More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators. I think there would be less piracy if there was not such an overwhelming force making people feel like its OK. Take for instance streetside CD shops. These were commonplace in El Paso, TX 5-6 years ago before enforcement started a heavy crackdown. I think people reasonably felt justified in what they were doing. They were not evil people or stupid people, people just did what they thought was right anyway. Was it legal no, was it fair to the original authors still living no. Was it educational to me, hell yeah. I can certainly see why they would do this.
If we had a poll that the laws as they stand now are unfair and have been used wrongly. The overwhelming majority would want a shorter term and more stringent controls on "who" gets to own intellectual property and how its transfered.
Even the so called mass of idiots of youtube would fit in that sample.
I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
I think most people care and most people understand that the monopolies have and are doing more damage then piratical distributers of information.
Your authers are not and have not been compensated fairly for a long time. The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished. And people like Peter Jackson and the hollywood stuidos he works for and represents are the only people who can benifit monetarily from this work.
Yet because of the damage monopolies has caused. And the turning of copywright into personal property to be handed along from institution to institution has done, we and our descendents and all those living now are paying the price far worse then a simple tax or compensation for people who have done work.
The point is that the law is not fair and there is no fair way to change the law. The beast has become to great and we are locked in a death rattle with a python crushing us. Sensible people are not allowed to give voice to defend the public domain and what should be fair, and a fair law.
To be deliberately aimed at stars unlikely to produce results. And because active transmission from us is terrifying, versus passive listening in a dark corner were we might not hear anything important or ground shaking.
I would hear stories about how poorly cellphones sent clear text data over the airwaves and how routine testing and goofing around with the equipment to intercept these signals allowed many a solider to find out his wife was banging someone else. I worked in IT, the guy nexto me worked with the radios. So I do not have first hand evidence of this, but I know ham operators have most of the knowledge neccissary to read the signals and that they had no to poor encryption for the longest time.
You can bet action has been taken on stuff "shouted over the airwaves". One wonders if the attitude that using radio is akin to shouting in a public hall. Are your shouts protected from being recorded in a restaraunt or at a mall? We know many police agencies are considering recording on duty and CCTV cameras everywhere. I think recording peoples conversations in public is overboard and deterimental to our society as a whole. But, there it is the basis of an argument for and against.
This assumes that people are "eaters" and a sub-human class of beings not capable of fully realizing their potential.
You are wrong because these "eaters" exist because of artificial systems and means put in place by those that control those means. Money, power, information. To name a few.
Ask yourself if you could share this world and all that you have, would you not share it to try and enlighten your fellow eaters so they could put their lives to good use rather then eating just to sustain themselves?
Your argument is good, but its decieving in that it assumes people are less valuable "there then here".
I'm pretty sure we have been returning laser signals from reflectors on the moons surface for awhile now. I imagine bandwith is not a terrible issue, just latency. If you can make a nice array to something in orbit, you got 25 PB every 8 minutes. (or so)
I can attest that framerates of 60 matter. At least from a long time playing quake3 and other similar FPS's competatively online. Also a consistant framerate that does not spike is very helpful.
I would say its very game dependent though, games that are highly twitched based and less strategic tend to get more mental attention in the FPS department. Other games like an MMO or RTS I hardly notice FPS even if it can drop to an abysmal 17fps if I'm still immersed.
Then you have some displays that can barely handle motion at 20fps (some LCD's are still not quite up to par).
But as a professional basement dwelling gamer, I know the studios who want to make money off online competative play need to focus on FPS and level/game flow over everything else.
That link was one of the best and most thought provoking speeches I have ever read about copywright. It's too bad we dont cherish and value this stuff for generations to come. I mean if someone bothered handing me that on a sheet of paper in middleschool I might have actually read it. Maybe it has taken all this time to finally understand it.
But this is doubly an argument for the value of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
People keep saying what you are saying but I have seen lots and lots of white papers on nuclear engines, that while nasty in atmosphere, would be perfectly fine making a 12 light year trip take 40 years.
The stories in the scrolls seem more like fables to explain wtf they saw like the ones about the war between angels. I wouldnt discount them as pure fiction, but I wouldnt rationalize modern day wars and crusades based on them either.
The unfortate thing is you really need a degree in hebrew to use the site, otherwise you take whatever little snippets and driblets there are at face value. I wish I had 10 years of theological knowledge and hebrew to go along with my strong background in IT, and military, and general understanding of science. It would make for some great inspiration for some wonderful sci-fi =P
P.S. we kill eachother and do stupid shit, not because of the words and the information, its because of the un-enlightened way in which we percieve and try to control the use of this information.
Or according to cern it doesnt require much to change the climate on earth, say for example enhance the greenhouse effect by creating more cloud cover.
Eris is a badass planet dood and by gods some times you need spit flecked raving lunacy to get your point across to people who just dont give a shit like you. Enjoy your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Further more I would like to point out that this is a slippery slope, next its homosexuals, or transgenender, then its artists who draw erotic art, or pornstars, then its people who are argueing for the rights of these groups, then its christians because the athiests are tired of them spreading lies to their children online.
Were do you draw the line at?
The consitutional rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness apply here. People have a right to eat hot dogs, congregate in parks and sing songs, dance along the side of the street, watch birds in a park, even if its not expressly listed. The rights of the constitution and open ended and anything not listed there is assumed to be a specific right. The bill of rights is there to limit government expressly, anything not expressily written about is assumed to be OK under the constitution.
These people have a right to play video games online with their friends in groups and in public.
Specific services have the right to stop them from using their products, this is the caveat.
To see why this is so, we need only look to the text of the Constitution. It defines our most fundamental rights and protections in open-ended terms: “freedom of speech,” for example, and “equal protection of the laws,” “due process of law,” “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “free exercise” of religion and “cruel and unusual punishment.” These terms are not self-defining; they did not have clear meanings even to the people who drafted them. The framers fully understood that they were leaving it to future generations to use their intelligence, judgment and experience to give concrete meaning to the expressed aspirations.
Citation: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/opinion/14stone.html?_r=0 If someone can come up with a better citation and example feel free to contribute.
I do not condone or express any opinion on the actions of anyone on any sex offender lists, however, by shunning people and ostracising them from normal public interaction you are creating a subclass of people. These people will segregate further, and it could lead to potential psychological justification and rationalization of horrible acts in their eyes.
Somewhere you have to draw the line, I think kids should be protected in virtual space, but companies can do this by not allowing people to communicate with text or voice, or designing games with logging and allowing parents to only unlock communication with trusted friends.
It is entirely outside the bounds of the LAW to determine this, its outside of the bounds of the constitution to dictate even the use of specific applications.
This is bad, and most un-enlightened of us. We really are slipping and loosing touch with reality.
According to this article though, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor, Chernyobyl was graphite modulated, and different then a PWR.
The reactors them selves are chernobyl biscuis (/sarcasm).
http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ Commonly known as a pressurized water reactor (PWR).
The only thing revolutionary is the control systems. Its more digitized and automated then ever before. Personally I don't like this, not very warm and fuzzy about the US nuclear commission and the state of the industry. I would like to see other designs implemented.
Last double post and to clear up one final thing, I incorrectly state and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. If you follow the links in the post above you will see:
Tolkien sold these rights to United Artists in 1968, who in turn sold them to Zaentz in 1976
I just want to be clear. I am not perfect, nor do I hold any degrees or claim an intimate knowledge of debate, I'm speaking from my heart and personal life times experience.
Yep sorry I should have been more specific, the Hobbit. You can add George Orwell to that list. Its not the only content that has been taken out of the public domain though. Its crazy what is and is not, its pretty hard to find out for sure for some works.
http://www.mediabistro.com/appnewser/supreme-court-rules-for-copyright-on-old-foreign-titles_b19551?red=en
Was removed bo a forgien rights holder in 1994. The most recent movie had to be liscened and royalties payed to I'm guessing Tolkien Enterprises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-earth_Enterprises
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Middle-Earth_Enterprises
As near as I can tell thats who ultimately recieves the roylaties and liscences the work. Middle Earth Enterprises has held the rights to the books since it was sold to them (see details in the 2cnd link)
Oh and to be clear I know Shatner is not the creator of Star Trek and that its originally Gene Rodenberry's creation and the rights were transfered to Paramount pictures. I also would love people to support the next movie that comes out, as the last was great and in this case I think paramount is doing a good job with the ip.
But I am trying to acknowledge that without someone owning the IP large scale projects would not be able to pay anyone for the production of movies, games, etc..
However, on a side topic, there are allot of fan projects, and fanfiction, that has allot of merit and should probably be allowed to be produced commericially and make their own money using "Star Trek" and the characters from the original series. This is incidently off topic. I know of a particular project Nichelle Nicholes was involved in that would have been great if it had more legitimacy then it did.
Your correct about the length of terms I think people would respect. As far as correctness of my statement, I did not try to make an argument as to the legality or morality of my samples actions. Just that they pirated what is technically not in public domain. If you did some research on movies alone you would be suprised at what is actually not in the public domain. My other argument is that the tighter the grip on copywright the less respect the general public has for it. I do not see the error in those particular statements.
I think most people would draw the line at 30 or 60 years, probably more likely 60, I would prefer, 30-lifetime of the author, and "the author" not who they were employed with. They could sign over temporary permit to their employer or create a contract with a publisher, but at the end of their lives, it would end.
I also like the idea posited by many that people need to renew it every 5 years or so or it lapses to the public.
I never argued that it was legal or ethical. Its pretty much no longer morally bankrupt to pirate things older then 60 years for sure. People STILL do respect some creators. The game FTL is less pirated then EA sports titles (this could also be because of a smaller audience). Minecraft has heavy pirating but it has heavy support from people who love the game and want valid copies. Some people still, thank god support some of the content creators more often indie titles, or forms of entertainment that dont implicitly rely on copywright for a monopoly (dwarf fortress). However I am not even argueing for an alternate business model, just pointing out here that without the implicit respect of copywright by the general populace, that things arent so bad and apocalyptic.
The majority of the content I know to have been downloaded or recorded are movies older then 20 years, books, and music. That does not mean there are not tons and tons of under 25 year old games and movies and songs and books out there being pirated. And I know particularly in my circle of younger friends they just dont respect movie rights. They produce their own music and could care less about that industry as well. The older people I know pirate less and buy more movies from the store. But even they are pretty grumbly sometimes. A good example would be Star Trek the original series produced from 1966-67. Personally I think it would be covered under fair use as we have purchased the movies, and payed for the series, I personally just finished watching DS9 this year on netflix. I want stuff like this to be produced. But I also know that people with busy work schedules who cant get their TV shows like Fringe, or Vampire Diaries (to name one that is horrible and of a different genre) just wont wait for it, they'll go get it, and since its broadcast or they pay for cable people feel entitled to it.
And never once did I make the argument that it was a good thing, just that its how things are, and I illustrated that someone in 1841 predicted the situation we have quite well.
It is a fairly one sided battle in the legal and political department. So I do not really fault people for just not playing fair anymore. Its definately not going to help fix the problem, but what can we do? I personally would like to see William Shatner earn what he's do for playing Kirk all those years, yet, many don't , many in Finland really couldn't even get their hands on a legit copy of Star Trek.
I really do think things can only get worse if we do not reform our laws. We already have allot of people very polarized on the issue. I personally for the first half of my life didn't care at all until I started reading allot more about it and getting points of view, for example from some of the historical text I linked. To put it in perspective.
So to re-itirate my point. Most people don't respect copywright to the full extent of the law as it is. Copywright owners and big media syndicates are unwilling to relax their stance. People are copying more shit they shouldnt be, and its because of the
I would say a combination of everything from nuclear, to biodeisal (home compost), to solar, to wind, to geothermal, nat gas, just about anything we can use to decentralize and balance load on the grids should be implemented. But we dont own the power grid infrastructure. If we did we could do allot to help fix it up and spread out the sources of power so it didnt all come from one place.
Wouldnt need as many nuclear plants, and everyone would have a little bit more say and control over what gets implemented here and there by individual community standards and planning.
What sample bias that every single person I know personally has copied something from the internet or the radio, or recorded off of TV, or shared something they purchased with someone else who has then made copies of it themselves?
More specifically the institutions pushing for more insane copywright laws have done MORE to damage peoples personal and public image of authors and creators. I think there would be less piracy if there was not such an overwhelming force making people feel like its OK. Take for instance streetside CD shops. These were commonplace in El Paso, TX 5-6 years ago before enforcement started a heavy crackdown. I think people reasonably felt justified in what they were doing. They were not evil people or stupid people, people just did what they thought was right anyway. Was it legal no, was it fair to the original authors still living no. Was it educational to me, hell yeah. I can certainly see why they would do this.
If we had a poll that the laws as they stand now are unfair and have been used wrongly. The overwhelming majority would want a shorter term and more stringent controls on "who" gets to own intellectual property and how its transfered.
Even the so called mass of idiots of youtube would fit in that sample.
I think I speak for most people when I say "I don't care."
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/25/1345/03329
I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
I think most people care and most people understand that the monopolies have and are doing more damage then piratical distributers of information.
Your authers are not and have not been compensated fairly for a long time. The works of tolkien were removed from the public domain in 1994 and given to a holding company in trust of tolkiens estate. They are no longer benefiting from his work, we are being punished. And people like Peter Jackson and the hollywood stuidos he works for and represents are the only people who can benifit monetarily from this work.
Yet because of the damage monopolies has caused. And the turning of copywright into personal property to be handed along from institution to institution has done, we and our descendents and all those living now are paying the price far worse then a simple tax or compensation for people who have done work.
The point is that the law is not fair and there is no fair way to change the law. The beast has become to great and we are locked in a death rattle with a python crushing us. Sensible people are not allowed to give voice to defend the public domain and what should be fair, and a fair law.
To be deliberately aimed at stars unlikely to produce results. And because active transmission from us is terrifying, versus passive listening in a dark corner were we might not hear anything important or ground shaking.
I would hear stories about how poorly cellphones sent clear text data over the airwaves and how routine testing and goofing around with the equipment to intercept these signals allowed many a solider to find out his wife was banging someone else. I worked in IT, the guy nexto me worked with the radios. So I do not have first hand evidence of this, but I know ham operators have most of the knowledge neccissary to read the signals and that they had no to poor encryption for the longest time.
You can bet action has been taken on stuff "shouted over the airwaves". One wonders if the attitude that using radio is akin to shouting in a public hall. Are your shouts protected from being recorded in a restaraunt or at a mall? We know many police agencies are considering recording on duty and CCTV cameras everywhere. I think recording peoples conversations in public is overboard and deterimental to our society as a whole. But, there it is the basis of an argument for and against.
This assumes that people are "eaters" and a sub-human class of beings not capable of fully realizing their potential.
You are wrong because these "eaters" exist because of artificial systems and means put in place by those that control those means. Money, power, information. To name a few.
Ask yourself if you could share this world and all that you have, would you not share it to try and enlighten your fellow eaters so they could put their lives to good use rather then eating just to sustain themselves?
Your argument is good, but its decieving in that it assumes people are less valuable "there then here".
If your worried about price, I hear khazakhstan is very nice!
(though in reality the Russians are permanently paying them for access to space now)
I'm pretty sure we have been returning laser signals from reflectors on the moons surface for awhile now. I imagine bandwith is not a terrible issue, just latency. If you can make a nice array to something in orbit, you got 25 PB every 8 minutes. (or so)
I can attest that framerates of 60 matter. At least from a long time playing quake3 and other similar FPS's competatively online. Also a consistant framerate that does not spike is very helpful.
I would say its very game dependent though, games that are highly twitched based and less strategic tend to get more mental attention in the FPS department. Other games like an MMO or RTS I hardly notice FPS even if it can drop to an abysmal 17fps if I'm still immersed.
Then you have some displays that can barely handle motion at 20fps (some LCD's are still not quite up to par).
But as a professional basement dwelling gamer, I know the studios who want to make money off online competative play need to focus on FPS and level/game flow over everything else.
That link was one of the best and most thought provoking speeches I have ever read about copywright. It's too bad we dont cherish and value this stuff for generations to come. I mean if someone bothered handing me that on a sheet of paper in middleschool I might have actually read it. Maybe it has taken all this time to finally understand it.
But this is doubly an argument for the value of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
People keep saying what you are saying but I have seen lots and lots of white papers on nuclear engines, that while nasty in atmosphere, would be perfectly fine making a 12 light year trip take 40 years.
Keptain Kirk would not like that...
Thanks both for your input on the languages.
The stories in the scrolls seem more like fables to explain wtf they saw like the ones about the war between angels. I wouldnt discount them as pure fiction, but I wouldnt rationalize modern day wars and crusades based on them either.
The unfortate thing is you really need a degree in hebrew to use the site, otherwise you take whatever little snippets and driblets there are at face value. I wish I had 10 years of theological knowledge and hebrew to go along with my strong background in IT, and military, and general understanding of science. It would make for some great inspiration for some wonderful sci-fi =P
P.S. we kill eachother and do stupid shit, not because of the words and the information, its because of the un-enlightened way in which we percieve and try to control the use of this information.
Or according to cern it doesnt require much to change the climate on earth, say for example enhance the greenhouse effect by creating more cloud cover.
See http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
Fun stuff, though not past the hypothetical and experimental stages.
Eris is a badass planet dood and by gods some times you need spit flecked raving lunacy to get your point across to people who just dont give a shit like you. Enjoy your life.
Oh don't worry about me I'm totally crazy already. My favorite is Giorgio Tsoukalos
While it's highly unlikely (according to NASA), I would be giddy with joy if Thor thought 12.21.2012 was an epic day to troll us all.