How accurate it is doesn't matter. What matters is if the person who would make money deploying it can pitch it correctly to the people in charge. If so, they'll still try it. China would be the perfect place to start as they don't seem as though they'd be worried about false positives.
I disagree. The whole point of DRM is NOT to stop piracy. This is something that cannot be done and they know this and have said they know this publicly. Stopping piracy is what they tell you so that you don't mind them taking your rights. Who care if it's about us getting shit for free? They are the pot calling the kettle black! The only thing it is about is them getting as much money as possible out of us. That's it. Bottom line. End of story. They don't care about us, our rights, or anything but their bottom line. They sue dead people and grannies! It's not even about us "stealing" from them because they know they can't stop it. It's about controlling the customers they do have to squeeze the maximum amount of money from them.
So when half the genetic diversity is there, this means some of the things that were recessive in the parent have a greater chance of becoming dominant in the child? That's the only way I can see something hapening in an offspring that was not present in the parent.
"We have now demonstrated that sharks are actually able to use an alternative, previously unknown reproductive pathway, which is parthenogenesis. The problem here is that this alternative reproductive pathway results in offspring that have much lower genetic diversity,"
He just said the problem with a clone, is it's a clone! No shit! Haven't sharks been one of the longest to go without major changes in genetics anyways? They don't need to change! It bugs me when people make obvious statements and act like they're profound.
Dude, if there is an equation that describes what we call "free will" It's so complex that all the math PhD's in the world haven't figured it out yet. Unless you plan on dedicating your life to proving that it is out there, why is this disagreement even happening? When you try to argue something that has not been proven as though it has, you just come across sounding like every other religious zealot out there. Just FYI.
Ok according to the letter of this law, they could go in to any software company that has the means to reproduce anything and just seize everything if anyone has a mix tape somewhere in somebody's possession. This seems a little much... Somebody correct me if I read this wrong.
They could be built a lot better, only they're not because it is far more profitable to not improve the security and focus on features instead (flashy window animations sell better than being bulletproof).
This is exactly why it's being referred to as a utpoia. As soon as you can talk huge corporations into caring less about money, then you'll have your securely built software. I'm not holding MY breath.
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash yo, we're animals too. We've just had society train us not to listen to our instincts. And then we wonder why so many people aren't happy...
You're right, he totally should have threw the word cell in there somewhere. :P
I'll take a 'go to the bar and have a drink' engineering lab. I get engineering credit for that right? Thank you.
If 2 is illegal, why are there xerox machines in libraries? That you can put coins in for copies no less?
How accurate it is doesn't matter. What matters is if the person who would make money deploying it can pitch it correctly to the people in charge. If so, they'll still try it. China would be the perfect place to start as they don't seem as though they'd be worried about false positives.
I disagree. The whole point of DRM is NOT to stop piracy. This is something that cannot be done and they know this and have said they know this publicly. Stopping piracy is what they tell you so that you don't mind them taking your rights. Who care if it's about us getting shit for free? They are the pot calling the kettle black! The only thing it is about is them getting as much money as possible out of us. That's it. Bottom line. End of story. They don't care about us, our rights, or anything but their bottom line. They sue dead people and grannies! It's not even about us "stealing" from them because they know they can't stop it. It's about controlling the customers they do have to squeeze the maximum amount of money from them.
If your enforcement technology is a sticker that says "Please don't copy me" should it be taken seriously?
So when half the genetic diversity is there, this means some of the things that were recessive in the parent have a greater chance of becoming dominant in the child? That's the only way I can see something hapening in an offspring that was not present in the parent.
"We have now demonstrated that sharks are actually able to use an alternative, previously unknown reproductive pathway, which is parthenogenesis. The problem here is that this alternative reproductive pathway results in offspring that have much lower genetic diversity,"
He just said the problem with a clone, is it's a clone! No shit! Haven't sharks been one of the longest to go without major changes in genetics anyways? They don't need to change! It bugs me when people make obvious statements and act like they're profound.
Dude, if there is an equation that describes what we call "free will" It's so complex that all the math PhD's in the world haven't figured it out yet. Unless you plan on dedicating your life to proving that it is out there, why is this disagreement even happening? When you try to argue something that has not been proven as though it has, you just come across sounding like every other religious zealot out there. Just FYI.
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
Ok according to the letter of this law, they could go in to any software company that has the means to reproduce anything and just seize everything if anyone has a mix tape somewhere in somebody's possession. This seems a little much... Somebody correct me if I read this wrong.
Isn't "corrupt government" kind of redundant?
They could be built a lot better, only they're not because it is far more profitable to not improve the security and focus on features instead (flashy window animations sell better than being bulletproof). This is exactly why it's being referred to as a utpoia. As soon as you can talk huge corporations into caring less about money, then you'll have your securely built software. I'm not holding MY breath.