It's a beautiful solution. You start with water and end with water. You use the sun's energy to split the water up, and recpature that energy for movement when you recombine them. That's about a simple of a circle as you can get.
And as for the nay sayers pointing out Hydrogen's explosiveness, wasn't there a story here not too long ago about how Hydrogen ain't that bad and even has had its name cleared in the Hindenberg incident? Spill gasoline on your selve and ignite it and you have a problem. Spill hydrogen on yourself and you... oh, wait, it would float away and disperse.
Attacking the U.S. is like attacking two brds with one stone. The terrorists hate the U.S. for the reasons cited in this thread. Attacking us attacks everything our government stands for.
I don't have too much problem with the troops in Saudi Arabia, or the sanctions against Iraq... but I do take issue with what we have done to help/hide Israel's actions against Palestinians. It is too sad that the terrorists chose to attack in this way as it will only serve to hardern the resolve of those who have supported such policies. We could never change our policie in the wake of the attacks for it would be conceived to be in reaction to them.
In my informal investigation into quantum computing (which has the power to render useless existing cryptographic ideas), I stumbled across quantum cryptography. It's actually a variety of ideas that rely on the quantum mechanics and the laws of physics.
However, I'm not one to suggest it would be undefeatable!
That is a very slick way to try and misrepresent what I was saying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was because what I was saying is not clear.
I am saying that to change our policies to STOP the worngdoing -- on its own -- would encourage more attacks of these kind. To attack but continue the wrong doing would do nothing to repair the hate many have for America.
But a combination of these two would work. Show the world that we will not accept terrorism (as they have shown they will not accept unjust American actions). Change our policies to be fair and just to every person on this planet. Stop giving people legitimate reasons to hate us while not bending to the fist of terror.
Even if we do find out why, we must still strike back. To leave an attack like this unanswered is to ask to be abused. It works the same for a bullied child as it does for a nation.
And to stop now and say "maybe we should think about why we were attacked..." just encourages the idea that if America does something you don't like, kill a few thousand of their people to make them change their course.
There is a less violent way to have your voice heard. Whether that be through non-violent protests, publicizing points-of-view, or bribing and lobbying your them to change their policies, there is way.
Re:This really means little...
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 2
Ebay as an 'ISP' should have such protection
While I agree, this is not the case. There is a provision in the DMCA that says if an ISP is informed of DMCA violations by its users, it must either shut down that user, or risk liability for damages.
There was an article not long ago about a couple who retruned from vacation to find their cable provider had cut their Internet access for the same reason (even though there was never a trial or case -- the ISP did it out of fear).
I thought I had heard once that there was a theory that constants changes with the epxansion of the universe. There may have been a catch, though, that since we were of the universe, we couldn't detect it. Or maybe it was that different constants changed at different rates with the expansion.
Anyone have more ifoon this?
"...even though sales increased to $31.5 million in total sales in 2000 from $29.2 million in 1999."
I still have a problem when people try to cite facts like these as being evidence that pirated music improves sales. Now, throw out of your mmind all of teh number fudging and erroneously reported numerical values. The fact is that their sales increased from 1999-2000. But did this happen despite the piracy, or in spite of? In other words, who here can say how much their sals should have changed without the piracy? Would the lack of piracy have meant more sales jthus increasing their improvement? Or would the lack of piracy have meant less exposure so people would buy less new music thus having a neagtive impact on their potential sales growth.
You can't simply look at one tiny piece of data and say "uh yup, folks, lookie thar... that thar proves I should steal music."
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of sharing music (especially from the standpoint that current copyright terms are unconstitutional and harming the public domain). But if you're going to complain about it, don't use fuzzy math. Leave that to the politicians.
Well maybe you could have a point... Suppose the fetuses are lifef and abandoned by the parents, then they are by default wards of the state, no? And these research facilities kidnapped, destroyed state property and commited murder. Furthermore, any other 'abandoned' fetuses are property of the state and now Dubyah has an even bigger issue since he is directly responsible rather than being apart from the priavte industry.
I just found an article on CNN that almost touched on the point. It seems there is a National Registry of Stem Cell Lines being proposed. However, it seems it will be nothing but a registry -- a way for people wanting to do research to find cells they can use and still use federal funds. It seems the ownership is still in the hands of those who did the work to get the cells. While licensing was not mentioned, I'm guesisng my original fears are still justified.
I heard a lady on the radio basically saying she wouldn't want stem cell research to be done even if her own child was ill with a disease stem cells had the potential to cure/treat. Her point of view was that God could take her child when he felt it was time and humans shouldn't interfere.
But, somehow, I seriously doubt she has never given her kid any sort of medication such as tylenol, antibiotics, etc. What if that same hcild would've died form a high fever, infection, etc.?
I don't know a lot of details about this area,s o I hope someone can shed more ligth on it. I'll just raise the question. Who owns the 60 lines of stem cells?
It is my understanding that when drug research is partially federally funded, the drug companies doing the research still get patents on their creations. Thus, they can enter a new drug into the market without any short term hope of competition and make tons of mony off of tax payers -- the same tax payers that footed part of the bill for the research! (Again, this is what I've read elsewhere, but may be wrong.)
So, who owns those stem cells? I think its great that there are 60 stem cell ines available, but how available are they? Will you have to buy a license to use some? And after you buy that license, will you be prevented from culturing them yourself to create your own supply or be forced to license more? Will the owners of these lines take a cutt of whatever you find with them?
I think Dubya looked awfully concerned about the whole thing. I just wonder what changes his mind. And while the whole things seems to be a happy medium, what are the missing details?
I have to partially disagree. It is my belief that one of the purposes of our government is to execute the will of the people. We have a representative democracy where we select a few individuals to represent our best interests. We don't have tmi to personally investigate each topic concerning our nation to the level of detail which it requires. That is the full-time job of our government officials.
Now maybe you can argue we should've complained louder. You could also very well argue that our government is not doing a good job of protecting the interests of its citizens.
But then you also have to remember that corporations are run by citizens. Citizens own stock in corporations. By ensuring successful businesses, the government is also ensuring the livlihood of those citizens with interest in that corporation's success.
Personally, I think the government needs to a better job of considering -- what is it? -- the needs of the many with the needs of the few.
I've only tinkered with actually contacting my congressman to express my views. So, I do take some of the blame. Corporations spend a lot more time and money talking to the congressmen that citizens do.
Maybe we citizens should take a level of interest on par with that of the corporate world.
As I said in my original post, AOL tends to block the major Jabber servers' aim-t's (AIM transports). Because of that, I'm forced to find obscure servers whose aim-t's are less likely to be blocked. All-in-all, it makes using AIM throuh Jabber a painful experience -- just anothe rbarrier to keep AIM'ers from switching.
I think it should happen soon enough. Last I heard (and I can't remember the source), AOL quietly switched ICQ over to using the same OSCAR protocol that AIM has used since its inception.
It's a Catch-22. I can't use Jabber in favor of AIM until all of my contacts on AIM also use it. And they can't start using Jabber until all of their contacts (for example, me) stop using AIM.
I'm making an incremental switch. Now that I found an obscure Jabber aim-t that AOL is not noticing enough to bother to block, Jabber is starting to work better for me (on Windows, non-the-less)
I'd love to see everyone use Jabber too, but not everyone wants to either take the trouble to do what I've done or give up on their AIM-only contacts all together.
The new game, Majestic, uses AIM. Perhaps that is going to be AOL's example of interoperability. While the game sounds cool I certainly no one hopes to say that will count as being non-monopolistic.
I remember hearing about this last week on NPR. They said that Abiomed had stated it would take place, but not when -- just within the next week (from the time the story aired).
So they were being vage about it before it happened and are being vague after it happened. Whyy all of the secrecy?
so let me get this straight. First there were computer systems. Then there were parasites (trojans/viruses/etc.). Like biological systems, these parasites were mostly specific to one species (platform).
Now we some new parasites (unhacking worm) coming out that have a symbiotic relationship with their host (linux machine).
I agree with you but the fact is that the case is in appeals now and needs a solution now. What you said does need to be done, but will take much longer. Public perception of hackers needs to be addressed as well as unfiying the rights of people and seeing past public opinion.
For a couple of years now, I've been periodically cursing my PalmOS PDAs' resolutions -- 160x160. Every vendor was pushing more gray-scale shades, or even color. That was great and all, but I took issue with the crappy resolution. Text was horrible to read.
Many people cited the fact that all programs and the OS itself wewre hard-wred for the 160x160 resolution. It seemed intuitively obvious to me that you could just double the resolution and use 2x2 pseudo-pixels for backwards compatability.
Now that I've seen comparative screenshots, I'm glad I stood where I stood. The difference *IS* dramatic! My hat is off to Sony and I hope others follow.
Now, if only they can do something about that price tag...
The judge asked whether the DMCA created a "permanent" copyright, or an effective extension of copyright. The lawyer smoothly dodged the questions by saying that movie studios could (not "would," but "could") publish works in unencrypted form when (if) their copyright on the work ever expires, or perhaps someone could use a decryption device then, since it would no longer be illegal under the DMCA to do so. The judge asked where those encryption devices would be, after all, they've been banned by the DMCA. The lawyer had faith that they would appear. So apparently: the fact that the studios haven't gotten encrypted content working in an impenetrable fashion yet means that they aren't screwing you out of your access to works when copyright expires.
I see a huge flaw in the lawyer's response. Ocne a copyright expires on a DVD (in, what, 70+ years form now?), they then expect the circumvention devices to surface. However, since other DVDs would still be out there with their copyright in effect and the circumvention tool could just as eaisly be used for those, the tool would still be illegal under the same premise as it is today: it could still be used for illegal purposes.
Thus, the movie industry would only have to release a new DVD encrypted with the same technology every few years to extend the ban on these circumevntion tools. Is it a problem? no. By the time the first copyrights expire, the technology will long since have been replaced.
So 2600 can't link to DeCSS because they're l33t hax0rs. However, the New York Times can link to DeCSS because their legitimate reporters.
What if 2600 linked to the New York Times article? The article itself isn't illegal, so they're not directly linking to anything illegal. The linkt o the illegal material would now be indirect. But since 2600 is still a bunch of leet hax0rs, their intent is the same -- so should that indirect link be illegal?
The last company I worked for had been doing checksums of web pages since about 1997. Depending on when Pumatech started, this may be prior art. In my breif skim, I didn't see any initial date.
Anyways, its a silly patent. Checksums are a pretty fundamental thing to do! I don't even think my last company tried to patent it because it was so blatantly obvious!
Slashdot Mirror
And as for the nay sayers pointing out Hydrogen's explosiveness, wasn't there a story here not too long ago about how Hydrogen ain't that bad and even has had its name cleared in the Hindenberg incident? Spill gasoline on your selve and ignite it and you have a problem. Spill hydrogen on yourself and you... oh, wait, it would float away and disperse.
I don't have too much problem with the troops in Saudi Arabia, or the sanctions against Iraq... but I do take issue with what we have done to help/hide Israel's actions against Palestinians. It is too sad that the terrorists chose to attack in this way as it will only serve to hardern the resolve of those who have supported such policies. We could never change our policie in the wake of the attacks for it would be conceived to be in reaction to them.
However, I'm not one to suggest it would be undefeatable!
I am saying that to change our policies to STOP the worngdoing -- on its own -- would encourage more attacks of these kind. To attack but continue the wrong doing would do nothing to repair the hate many have for America.
But a combination of these two would work. Show the world that we will not accept terrorism (as they have shown they will not accept unjust American actions). Change our policies to be fair and just to every person on this planet. Stop giving people legitimate reasons to hate us while not bending to the fist of terror.
And to stop now and say "maybe we should think about why we were attacked..." just encourages the idea that if America does something you don't like, kill a few thousand of their people to make them change their course.
There is a less violent way to have your voice heard. Whether that be through non-violent protests, publicizing points-of-view, or bribing and lobbying your them to change their policies, there is way.
While I agree, this is not the case. There is a provision in the DMCA that says if an ISP is informed of DMCA violations by its users, it must either shut down that user, or risk liability for damages.
There was an article not long ago about a couple who retruned from vacation to find their cable provider had cut their Internet access for the same reason (even though there was never a trial or case -- the ISP did it out of fear).
What did Be do to Compaq?
I thought I had heard once that there was a theory that constants changes with the epxansion of the universe. There may have been a catch, though, that since we were of the universe, we couldn't detect it. Or maybe it was that different constants changed at different rates with the expansion. Anyone have more ifoon this?
I still have a problem when people try to cite facts like these as being evidence that pirated music improves sales. Now, throw out of your mmind all of teh number fudging and erroneously reported numerical values. The fact is that their sales increased from 1999-2000. But did this happen despite the piracy, or in spite of? In other words, who here can say how much their sals should have changed without the piracy? Would the lack of piracy have meant more sales jthus increasing their improvement? Or would the lack of piracy have meant less exposure so people would buy less new music thus having a neagtive impact on their potential sales growth.
You can't simply look at one tiny piece of data and say "uh yup, folks, lookie thar... that thar proves I should steal music."
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of sharing music (especially from the standpoint that current copyright terms are unconstitutional and harming the public domain). But if you're going to complain about it, don't use fuzzy math. Leave that to the politicians.
Extreme? Yes. But thought provoking?
I just found an article on CNN that almost touched on the point. It seems there is a National Registry of Stem Cell Lines being proposed. However, it seems it will be nothing but a registry -- a way for people wanting to do research to find cells they can use and still use federal funds. It seems the ownership is still in the hands of those who did the work to get the cells. While licensing was not mentioned, I'm guesisng my original fears are still justified.
But, somehow, I seriously doubt she has never given her kid any sort of medication such as tylenol, antibiotics, etc. What if that same hcild would've died form a high fever, infection, etc.?
It is my understanding that when drug research is partially federally funded, the drug companies doing the research still get patents on their creations. Thus, they can enter a new drug into the market without any short term hope of competition and make tons of mony off of tax payers -- the same tax payers that footed part of the bill for the research! (Again, this is what I've read elsewhere, but may be wrong.)
So, who owns those stem cells? I think its great that there are 60 stem cell ines available, but how available are they? Will you have to buy a license to use some? And after you buy that license, will you be prevented from culturing them yourself to create your own supply or be forced to license more? Will the owners of these lines take a cutt of whatever you find with them?
I think Dubya looked awfully concerned about the whole thing. I just wonder what changes his mind. And while the whole things seems to be a happy medium, what are the missing details?
I have to partially disagree. It is my belief that one of the purposes of our government is to execute the will of the people. We have a representative democracy where we select a few individuals to represent our best interests. We don't have tmi to personally investigate each topic concerning our nation to the level of detail which it requires. That is the full-time job of our government officials.
Now maybe you can argue we should've complained louder. You could also very well argue that our government is not doing a good job of protecting the interests of its citizens.
But then you also have to remember that corporations are run by citizens. Citizens own stock in corporations. By ensuring successful businesses, the government is also ensuring the livlihood of those citizens with interest in that corporation's success.
Personally, I think the government needs to a better job of considering -- what is it? -- the needs of the many with the needs of the few.
I've only tinkered with actually contacting my congressman to express my views. So, I do take some of the blame. Corporations spend a lot more time and money talking to the congressmen that citizens do.
Maybe we citizens should take a level of interest on par with that of the corporate world.
As I said in my original post, AOL tends to block the major Jabber servers' aim-t's (AIM transports). Because of that, I'm forced to find obscure servers whose aim-t's are less likely to be blocked. All-in-all, it makes using AIM throuh Jabber a painful experience -- just anothe rbarrier to keep AIM'ers from switching.
I think it should happen soon enough. Last I heard (and I can't remember the source), AOL quietly switched ICQ over to using the same OSCAR protocol that AIM has used since its inception.
It's a Catch-22. I can't use Jabber in favor of AIM until all of my contacts on AIM also use it. And they can't start using Jabber until all of their contacts (for example, me) stop using AIM.
I'm making an incremental switch. Now that I found an obscure Jabber aim-t that AOL is not noticing enough to bother to block, Jabber is starting to work better for me (on Windows, non-the-less)
I'd love to see everyone use Jabber too, but not everyone wants to either take the trouble to do what I've done or give up on their AIM-only contacts all together.
The new game, Majestic, uses AIM. Perhaps that is going to be AOL's example of interoperability. While the game sounds cool I certainly no one hopes to say that will count as being non-monopolistic.
So they were being vage about it before it happened and are being vague after it happened. Whyy all of the secrecy?
Now we some new parasites (unhacking worm) coming out that have a symbiotic relationship with their host (linux machine).
I agree with you but the fact is that the case is in appeals now and needs a solution now. What you said does need to be done, but will take much longer. Public perception of hackers needs to be addressed as well as unfiying the rights of people and seeing past public opinion.
Many people cited the fact that all programs and the OS itself wewre hard-wred for the 160x160 resolution. It seemed intuitively obvious to me that you could just double the resolution and use 2x2 pseudo-pixels for backwards compatability.
Now that I've seen comparative screenshots, I'm glad I stood where I stood. The difference *IS* dramatic! My hat is off to Sony and I hope others follow.
Now, if only they can do something about that price tag...
I see a huge flaw in the lawyer's response. Ocne a copyright expires on a DVD (in, what, 70+ years form now?), they then expect the circumvention devices to surface. However, since other DVDs would still be out there with their copyright in effect and the circumvention tool could just as eaisly be used for those, the tool would still be illegal under the same premise as it is today: it could still be used for illegal purposes.
Thus, the movie industry would only have to release a new DVD encrypted with the same technology every few years to extend the ban on these circumevntion tools. Is it a problem? no. By the time the first copyrights expire, the technology will long since have been replaced.
What if 2600 linked to the New York Times article? The article itself isn't illegal, so they're not directly linking to anything illegal. The linkt o the illegal material would now be indirect. But since 2600 is still a bunch of leet hax0rs, their intent is the same -- so should that indirect link be illegal?
Anyways, its a silly patent. Checksums are a pretty fundamental thing to do! I don't even think my last company tried to patent it because it was so blatantly obvious!