Don't try too hard to find "Brian Greene's Elegant Universe" in your local listing. Instead, just watch Nova as planned, as that's the show which will be covering the topic. Part one is tonight. Part two is next week.
I don't know why the article (at least), or the headline (even better) didn't mention this. It's sort of the inverse of "The Lone Gunman are Dead".
Yes, it's in one of the seven links. Did you click all seven? I didn't.
Maybe the poster, MacGod, has a Bluetooth enabled computer, and wants to simplify the robot? Bluetooth works, and is has good general support.
Mac users tend to realize it's what your computer can do that's important, not what you can tinker with on the computer. Had he asked the question you posed, the simple, cheap and common Bluetooth protocol might have gotten far less mention than some protocol X which has a range of 1km, supports 64k simultaneous connections, costs $500/unit, and will require the student to spend more time debugging the wireless hardware than actually designing/building/improving the robot.
It's much more logical to notice that Bluetooth is built-in to one's computer, and decide to go with that, if it meets one's needs.
Definition (b) is an imprecise usage of the word. The word "sound" came about to describe the phenomena of hearing. There is no sound without hearing.
Once we learned that sound is transmitted by vibration, we used the word sound to label those vibrations in general. Such usage leads to ambiguity and is primarily useful for describing a general phenomena. If one makes a point to call vibrations in general a sound, and the sound is unhearable, the person is being imprecise.
It's like calling Bach a classical composer. As a general term, it's correct, but if you make a point that Bach is indeed classical as a precise category, it would be wrong. He was a baroque composer.
If the poster has simply said that the sound of a black hole was measured, that's a generality, and correct. But instead chose to make a specific point that the vibration was indeed sound, and not just a low, unhearable, vibration.
Who am I to say the dictionary is wrong? Consider this, according to definition (b), if I shake you, your body's motion is sound, even if it doesn't make a sound. Even a photon is sound, since it is a vibrating particle, transmitting its vibration through space-time.
Sound is the word defining that which the ears hear. Is it possible to listen, directly, to that shock wave even if one were standing (floating) in the midst of it? If not, it ain't sound.
Perhaps you missed the initial salvo that went like this:
I won't be impressed until they can make a healthy human male yearn for a nice healthy vegan dinner.
The implication is that only vegan dinners are healthy, and more so, that an omnivorous meal is unhealthy. That's a pretty hefty attack and will naturally bring responses. Imagine if the poster had said, "I won't be impressed until they can make a homosexual male yearn for a nice healthy heterosexual relationship." or "I won't be impressed until they can make a geek yearn for a nice bug-free Microsoft OS."
You know all those little laws that are all the rage today? Laws that will make putting chips into ink cartridges illegal, laws that make reverse engineering your own property illegal. And all those lawsuits, lawsuits demanding the record companies sell their music online, lawsuits telling MS it's not up to them whether to bundle a web-browser with their OS or not, lawsuits blaming McDonald's for your fat ass...
Add that shit up.
You can have it one way or the other. In a free market, they'll sell anything to anyone willing and able to pay for it. Put up all these hurdles, and you'll cause this sort of thing to happen. Do you think Apple doesn't want to sell music to the rest of the world? Do you think IBM, Dell, Amazon, etc, don't want to sell to you?
That and your attempt to dodge about pi is irreverent. The court found MS to be an illegal monopoly. If you don't like it. well thats kinda too bad. You can say the sky is pink with yellow dots, but its not.
The court can call the sky pink with yellow dots, but it's not. If the court's decision is all it takes to convince you of something, then there's not use talking to you. Microsoft is not a monopoly. They were found to be a monopoly by a court, but looking up the definition of the word doesn't match reality. The court's purpose is to find out how the government is going to treat them. Oh, and the court found MS to be in violation of a consent decree, not of being a monopoly (the consent decree was entered into in order to prevent an initial anti-trust lawsuit). Furthermore, what happened to the case in appeal?
Because you missed the part where MS says the company signed a non-compete clause. See thats the whole thing with coerced, its an offer you cant refuse.
Uh, yeah. OK, whatever you say. I'm sure the CD copying place could have just said, "Sorry, we don't want to sign a non-compete clause. You'll have to take your business elsewhere." The fact is they entered the contract voluntarily.
Reply if you wish, I'm done with you if you continue to argue based on feelings and not facts. Just because you don't like MS (neither do I), you really really want your anti-trust, monopoly, coercion allegations to be true, so you ignore the facts. Coercion requires force. MS applied no force (force is a physical thing, simply saying "or I won't do business with you" is not force, even if some people imagine it to be so). Monopoly requires being the sole supplier of some commodity. MS is not the sole supplier of anything except MS software (like Apple is the sole supplier of Apple software, IBM is the sole supplier of IBM software, etc).
But since you feel that MS is a monopoly, then it must be so, the facts be damned. I pity you.
Sounds kind of like using monopoly power for illegal restraint of trade.
I'm sure that's what the submitter thought too. While it's true that Microsoft has engaged in both immoral and illegal activities, this is not one of them. Every time MS does something that people don't like, they cry "foul". What possible monopoly can MS have where they could tell a CD copier to exclusively service them? MS doesn't even have a monopoly in OS's (Mac OS X, Linux, etc), office suites, (Open Office), web browsers (Safari, Mozilla, Netscape). Just because your willpower is too weak to stay away from Microsoft, don't blame them. (or if you do keep away from MS, then how can you call them a monopoly?*)
Anyway, I don't see how MS has the power to force a CD maker to unvoluntarily choose to not do business with others. IBM could do the same, so could Apple, and even RedHat. In this case, MS did it. Sure it shows how they suck, but it doesn't make them a monopoly.
* Just to save one set of back-and-forths, MS was found by a court to be a monopoly, but pi was legally set to the value of 3 in some southern state too, don't make it so though. If they own 100% of the distribution of something other than their own product, let me know. Apple has a greater monopoly than any MS has.
A world with linux, apple, and microsoft--having the three of them is much better than having any two. New ideas, new flow, new users.
I dunno, a world with only Apple and Linux would be much better than a world with all three (ie: any with Microsoft).
The only truly useful thing from MS is their office suite. That's more than offset by the incompatibilities, SCO lawsuits, screwed up Windows configs, IIS worms, e-mail viruses... Heck, it's more than offset by all the time wasted waiting for my PC to reboot...
I do realize the problem with knowing what the world would be like without MS. Would Linux have been created? Would computers be as cheap and plentiful as they are now? But if MS were to fade away into oblivion, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear, unless perhaps they faded away in some really funny fashion which would make me laugh so hard tears would flow. Something like the pie-in-the-face times the crashing Windows 98 demo times the developers/monkey dance. That would be fun.
No one ever invented anything to "change the future". That may have been how they rationalized their ability, but that's not why they did it. They did it because it was fun, it was fun because it was a challenge. It was something no one else had ever done, and something that no one else could do. They did something new, they solved a problem, they filled a need.
The inventor may have known that their invention would have a huge world-wide impact, and that may have excited them and spurred them on, but they went forward for themselves.
The people who invent gadgets do so because they are unable to invent anything better. There's money to be made in gadgets too.
Except that there are independent labels and independent artists.
Even more to the point, you said: That doesn't mean they want the industry the way it is.
What you mean is you don't want it that way. Honestly, you don't care what others want. No one is forcing them to sign the contract (well, infamous rap labels aside), they choose freely to do it. If there were no record labels, there would be even fewer pop sensations. Why? How would you hear about any one? Instead of a lot of pop that a lot of people enjoy, there'd be nothing but indie bands that very few (by definition) enjoy. Sure, there'd be a word-of-mouth pop sensation now and then, but they already happen (Macarena anyone?).
You don't like success unless it's an artist. Then only if they are humble.
If they need you 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, it sounds like they need you more than you need them. We live in a free market, and everyone who complains about being a slave-wage is wasting that very freedom.
If you can't quit and if they are screwing you over, then you've had it easy this whole time, and they should have screwed you over long ago. If you just give in, there's nothing to stop them from doing the same to you again later on.
Here's what you do, tell them, "Hey, this isn't right. You need to pay me overtime. This is going to be a big job and you need me. This goes above and beyond, and I'm here for you, but you need to be here for me to make this work."
I know, I'm going to hear, "but the job market is so tough right now!" Well, if it is, then either stick with the long hours and be thankful you have a job (if the long hours is better than trying to find a new job), or start typing up that resume.
You're an engineer, this is a simple problem. I think you are just afraid of what the solution is telling you. If they aren't going to pay you extra, they aren't going to pay you extra. The next move's yours. It's your life, take charge.
If you owned the last copy of Shakespeare, do you have an obligation to copy it or even preserve it? I don't mean would you, I most certainly would make sure it was available for mass distribution, and so would most people I'd wager. I just mean, if some strange person were to own it, does anyone else have the right to force him/her to give it up? (we'll assume the person owns it outright physically, and has no copyright on it)
Yes, I have my own answers to that question, but I'm not interested in leading a long discussion about why I'm right or not. Simply, I think it's a question a lot of people would skip over without much concern. Something for you to think about.
The game starts off in 1900 and goes through to 2010
The game only goes through to 2010? Are there no more movies after that year?
I think that means they know when the last Star Wars is going to be released (Episode IX), which will suck so bad that it destroys the whole movie industry.
That, or it's when movie pirates get so good that movies show up online before they're even filmed.
Life, by it's very nature, by it's very definition, requires consumption. Everything every living creature does involves consumption.
Everything that goes into owning a computer (from the mining of metals, creation of plastics and glasses, manufacturing, transportation, packaging, the byproducts of the people involved in all those steps, the cost of electricity, the cost of the glasses you now need to see because of focusing on such a close target, the microwave radiation from your 802.11b network connection, a rah-rah and etc, and so-on so-on so-on) added together will not cause all the trees on the planet to die, the o-zone layer to deplete, the oceans to stop emitting carbon-dioxide, the rain to have a pH so low as to eat through your skin, one one salmon or spotted owl to die. The planet is huge, and chock full of resources, and not only that, but those resources are constantly replenished via life's ability to fill any niche available to it. It's a complex system which constantly adjusts to feedback.
On the other hand, owning that computer will give jobs to many who wouldn't have them, will give you access to the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humanity, will put you in direct (virtual) contact with millions (billions?) of people, enhance your ability to take the ideas of your mind and realize them in reality.
The circuitry and casing of a monitor is cheap. It's the glass that's expensive. If your theory was right, a 23" LCD wouldn't cost three grand (even though the high-end model is always disproportionately marked-up, if Apple, Sony and SGI can charge $3k, then Acer would gladly come in at $2k if it could be made that cheaply, then generic company B would come in at $1.8k, and so on).
If a 15" LCD sells for around $300, then a manufacturer getting $100 for an LCD with, say, 20 bad pixels would find that preferable to getting $0 for an LCD with 20 bad pixels (which is what they get for them now).
As for how they came up with the number, I can guarantee you it wasn't because they wanted a 95% success rate. They want a 100% success rate. They will only throw out LCD's when the cost of selling them is greater than the cost of throwing them away. It's supply and demand, not "95% success ain't bad."
Until recently, LCD's cost so much that people wouldn't put up with many defects, though the reality has been that there were always a few. Now that prices have dropped and quality has increased (which are related in this case as yields have improved greatly in the last few years), a market is opening for lower-quality, lower-priced LCD's. I bet this guy would be happy to pay $50 for a passive matrix, faulty-pixeled LCD.
Personally, I've been thinking it would be great to buy a small black-and-white or greyscale LCD to use on a headless server for those times I need a screen on it. It'd be a lot more convenient than lugging a huge (or even small) CRT around.
I dispute that they have a right to own Mickey Mouse.
Which is the crux of the matter, isn't it? If a man can own Mickey Mouse, can't he sell it to a company?
Your 3 rational options are all themselves irrational in my view.
That statement is irrational. Rationality doesn't depend on one's "view". Either something is or it isn't. The options I gave are the only rational ones (if there are more, I'd be happy to hear them). You are talking about what is considered the reasonable, which is subjective.
I would propose returning copyright to the original (in the USA) 14 years from publication.
Why 14 years? Why not 3? Or how about 28? Perhaps it depends on the phase of the Moon at the time? My point being, why is 14 years the proper number?
That's plenty of time to use the immediate profits from work X to fund the creation of work Y.
Ah, and here we have the answer. 14 years is the optimal amount of time (well, if not optimal, at least "plenty") required for a person to continually create, while giving you the ability to take their work without payment. You see? Something for nothing. I'm just calling it what it is.
Should you only be able to make enough money to survive until your next paycheck? Why would you work hard? It's been said that the box office sales for The Fellowship of the Ring has already made back all the money that will be spent for the entire trilogy plus and extra 50%. So should New Line Cinemas be forced to release the entire trilogy now into the public domain? After all, now they can fund 4 films and have money left over!
Forcing things into the public domain is theft. You can cite all the good the public domain does (and I agree that the public domain is *great*). But to strike some form of balance is to try to balance an amount of theft for the common good vs not being a thief. How do you determine the balance? Who determines the balance.
Such a system (which is what we have now) simply becomes the creators lobbying against the consumers and vice versa for the rights to certain property.
And it's laughable to think that anyone could corner the market on food, water, air and shelter. Any system that allows that to happen is corrupt. A free market can't keep you from growing corn and raising cattle in your own backyard.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't try too hard to find "Brian Greene's Elegant Universe" in your local listing. Instead, just watch Nova as planned, as that's the show which will be covering the topic. Part one is tonight. Part two is next week.
I don't know why the article (at least), or the headline (even better) didn't mention this. It's sort of the inverse of "The Lone Gunman are Dead".
Yes, it's in one of the seven links. Did you click all seven? I didn't.
Maybe the poster, MacGod, has a Bluetooth enabled computer, and wants to simplify the robot? Bluetooth works, and is has good general support.
Mac users tend to realize it's what your computer can do that's important, not what you can tinker with on the computer. Had he asked the question you posed, the simple, cheap and common Bluetooth protocol might have gotten far less mention than some protocol X which has a range of 1km, supports 64k simultaneous connections, costs $500/unit, and will require the student to spend more time debugging the wireless hardware than actually designing/building/improving the robot.
It's much more logical to notice that Bluetooth is built-in to one's computer, and decide to go with that, if it meets one's needs.
Definition (b) is an imprecise usage of the word. The word "sound" came about to describe the phenomena of hearing. There is no sound without hearing.
Once we learned that sound is transmitted by vibration, we used the word sound to label those vibrations in general. Such usage leads to ambiguity and is primarily useful for describing a general phenomena. If one makes a point to call vibrations in general a sound, and the sound is unhearable, the person is being imprecise.
It's like calling Bach a classical composer. As a general term, it's correct, but if you make a point that Bach is indeed classical as a precise category, it would be wrong. He was a baroque composer.
If the poster has simply said that the sound of a black hole was measured, that's a generality, and correct. But instead chose to make a specific point that the vibration was indeed sound, and not just a low, unhearable, vibration.
Who am I to say the dictionary is wrong? Consider this, according to definition (b), if I shake you, your body's motion is sound, even if it doesn't make a sound. Even a photon is sound, since it is a vibrating particle, transmitting its vibration through space-time.
Sound is the word defining that which the ears hear. Is it possible to listen, directly, to that shock wave even if one were standing (floating) in the midst of it? If not, it ain't sound.
Perhaps you missed the initial salvo that went like this:
I won't be impressed until they can make a healthy human male yearn for a nice healthy vegan dinner.
The implication is that only vegan dinners are healthy, and more so, that an omnivorous meal is unhealthy. That's a pretty hefty attack and will naturally bring responses. Imagine if the poster had said, "I won't be impressed until they can make a homosexual male yearn for a nice healthy heterosexual relationship." or "I won't be impressed until they can make a geek yearn for a nice bug-free Microsoft OS."
Anti-zealot zealots are stupid.
You know all those little laws that are all the rage today? Laws that will make putting chips into ink cartridges illegal, laws that make reverse engineering your own property illegal. And all those lawsuits, lawsuits demanding the record companies sell their music online, lawsuits telling MS it's not up to them whether to bundle a web-browser with their OS or not, lawsuits blaming McDonald's for your fat ass...
Add that shit up.
You can have it one way or the other. In a free market, they'll sell anything to anyone willing and able to pay for it. Put up all these hurdles, and you'll cause this sort of thing to happen. Do you think Apple doesn't want to sell music to the rest of the world? Do you think IBM, Dell, Amazon, etc, don't want to sell to you?
That and your attempt to dodge about pi is irreverent. The court found MS to be an illegal monopoly. If you don't like it. well thats kinda too bad. You can say the sky is pink with yellow dots, but its not.
The court can call the sky pink with yellow dots, but it's not. If the court's decision is all it takes to convince you of something, then there's not use talking to you. Microsoft is not a monopoly. They were found to be a monopoly by a court, but looking up the definition of the word doesn't match reality. The court's purpose is to find out how the government is going to treat them. Oh, and the court found MS to be in violation of a consent decree, not of being a monopoly (the consent decree was entered into in order to prevent an initial anti-trust lawsuit). Furthermore, what happened to the case in appeal?
Because you missed the part where MS says the company signed a non-compete clause. See thats the whole thing with coerced, its an offer you cant refuse.
Uh, yeah. OK, whatever you say. I'm sure the CD copying place could have just said, "Sorry, we don't want to sign a non-compete clause. You'll have to take your business elsewhere." The fact is they entered the contract voluntarily.
Reply if you wish, I'm done with you if you continue to argue based on feelings and not facts. Just because you don't like MS (neither do I), you really really want your anti-trust, monopoly, coercion allegations to be true, so you ignore the facts. Coercion requires force. MS applied no force (force is a physical thing, simply saying "or I won't do business with you" is not force, even if some people imagine it to be so). Monopoly requires being the sole supplier of some commodity. MS is not the sole supplier of anything except MS software (like Apple is the sole supplier of Apple software, IBM is the sole supplier of IBM software, etc).
But since you feel that MS is a monopoly, then it must be so, the facts be damned. I pity you.
Sounds kind of like using monopoly power for illegal restraint of trade.
I'm sure that's what the submitter thought too. While it's true that Microsoft has engaged in both immoral and illegal activities, this is not one of them. Every time MS does something that people don't like, they cry "foul". What possible monopoly can MS have where they could tell a CD copier to exclusively service them? MS doesn't even have a monopoly in OS's (Mac OS X, Linux, etc), office suites, (Open Office), web browsers (Safari, Mozilla, Netscape). Just because your willpower is too weak to stay away from Microsoft, don't blame them. (or if you do keep away from MS, then how can you call them a monopoly?*)
Anyway, I don't see how MS has the power to force a CD maker to unvoluntarily choose to not do business with others. IBM could do the same, so could Apple, and even RedHat. In this case, MS did it. Sure it shows how they suck, but it doesn't make them a monopoly.
* Just to save one set of back-and-forths, MS was found by a court to be a monopoly, but pi was legally set to the value of 3 in some southern state too, don't make it so though. If they own 100% of the distribution of something other than their own product, let me know. Apple has a greater monopoly than any MS has.
I don't trust Microsoft as it is. Their "Trusted Computing" initiative makes me trust them even less.
Since this is under YRO, I figured I'd ask: whose rights are being violated here? (I can't see any rights violations)
This seems more like a story about how evil Microsoft is. And evil they are, which is why I neither purchase nor support their software.
A world with linux, apple, and microsoft--having the three of them is much better than having any two. New ideas, new flow, new users.
I dunno, a world with only Apple and Linux would be much better than a world with all three (ie: any with Microsoft).
The only truly useful thing from MS is their office suite. That's more than offset by the incompatibilities, SCO lawsuits, screwed up Windows configs, IIS worms, e-mail viruses... Heck, it's more than offset by all the time wasted waiting for my PC to reboot...
I do realize the problem with knowing what the world would be like without MS. Would Linux have been created? Would computers be as cheap and plentiful as they are now? But if MS were to fade away into oblivion, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear, unless perhaps they faded away in some really funny fashion which would make me laugh so hard tears would flow. Something like the pie-in-the-face times the crashing Windows 98 demo times the developers/monkey dance. That would be fun.
No one ever invented anything to "change the future". That may have been how they rationalized their ability, but that's not why they did it. They did it because it was fun, it was fun because it was a challenge. It was something no one else had ever done, and something that no one else could do. They did something new, they solved a problem, they filled a need.
The inventor may have known that their invention would have a huge world-wide impact, and that may have excited them and spurred them on, but they went forward for themselves.
The people who invent gadgets do so because they are unable to invent anything better. There's money to be made in gadgets too.
Except that there are independent labels and independent artists.
Even more to the point, you said: That doesn't mean they want the industry the way it is.
What you mean is you don't want it that way. Honestly, you don't care what others want. No one is forcing them to sign the contract (well, infamous rap labels aside), they choose freely to do it. If there were no record labels, there would be even fewer pop sensations. Why? How would you hear about any one? Instead of a lot of pop that a lot of people enjoy, there'd be nothing but indie bands that very few (by definition) enjoy. Sure, there'd be a word-of-mouth pop sensation now and then, but they already happen (Macarena anyone?).
You don't like success unless it's an artist. Then only if they are humble.
If they need you 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, it sounds like they need you more than you need them. We live in a free market, and everyone who complains about being a slave-wage is wasting that very freedom.
If you can't quit and if they are screwing you over, then you've had it easy this whole time, and they should have screwed you over long ago. If you just give in, there's nothing to stop them from doing the same to you again later on.
Here's what you do, tell them, "Hey, this isn't right. You need to pay me overtime. This is going to be a big job and you need me. This goes above and beyond, and I'm here for you, but you need to be here for me to make this work."
I know, I'm going to hear, "but the job market is so tough right now!" Well, if it is, then either stick with the long hours and be thankful you have a job (if the long hours is better than trying to find a new job), or start typing up that resume.
You're an engineer, this is a simple problem. I think you are just afraid of what the solution is telling you. If they aren't going to pay you extra, they aren't going to pay you extra. The next move's yours. It's your life, take charge.
Just a question, something to think about...
If you owned the last copy of Shakespeare, do you have an obligation to copy it or even preserve it? I don't mean would you, I most certainly would make sure it was available for mass distribution, and so would most people I'd wager. I just mean, if some strange person were to own it, does anyone else have the right to force him/her to give it up? (we'll assume the person owns it outright physically, and has no copyright on it)
Yes, I have my own answers to that question, but I'm not interested in leading a long discussion about why I'm right or not. Simply, I think it's a question a lot of people would skip over without much concern. Something for you to think about.
Might be worth a shot.
The game starts off in 1900 and goes through to 2010
The game only goes through to 2010? Are there no more movies after that year?
I think that means they know when the last Star Wars is going to be released (Episode IX), which will suck so bad that it destroys the whole movie industry.
That, or it's when movie pirates get so good that movies show up online before they're even filmed.
So, Be fans, what makes BeOS so special?
You know how everyone seems to be clamoring for Apple to release Mac OS for intel? Well, that's basically what BeOS is/was.
Life, by it's very nature, by it's very definition, requires consumption. Everything every living creature does involves consumption.
Everything that goes into owning a computer (from the mining of metals, creation of plastics and glasses, manufacturing, transportation, packaging, the byproducts of the people involved in all those steps, the cost of electricity, the cost of the glasses you now need to see because of focusing on such a close target, the microwave radiation from your 802.11b network connection, a rah-rah and etc, and so-on so-on so-on) added together will not cause all the trees on the planet to die, the o-zone layer to deplete, the oceans to stop emitting carbon-dioxide, the rain to have a pH so low as to eat through your skin, one one salmon or spotted owl to die. The planet is huge, and chock full of resources, and not only that, but those resources are constantly replenished via life's ability to fill any niche available to it. It's a complex system which constantly adjusts to feedback.
On the other hand, owning that computer will give jobs to many who wouldn't have them, will give you access to the largest repository of knowledge ever assembled by humanity, will put you in direct (virtual) contact with millions (billions?) of people, enhance your ability to take the ideas of your mind and realize them in reality.
So I ask, to what end is your inquiry directed?
The circuitry and casing of a monitor is cheap. It's the glass that's expensive. If your theory was right, a 23" LCD wouldn't cost three grand (even though the high-end model is always disproportionately marked-up, if Apple, Sony and SGI can charge $3k, then Acer would gladly come in at $2k if it could be made that cheaply, then generic company B would come in at $1.8k, and so on).
If a 15" LCD sells for around $300, then a manufacturer getting $100 for an LCD with, say, 20 bad pixels would find that preferable to getting $0 for an LCD with 20 bad pixels (which is what they get for them now).
As for how they came up with the number, I can guarantee you it wasn't because they wanted a 95% success rate. They want a 100% success rate. They will only throw out LCD's when the cost of selling them is greater than the cost of throwing them away. It's supply and demand, not "95% success ain't bad."
Until recently, LCD's cost so much that people wouldn't put up with many defects, though the reality has been that there were always a few. Now that prices have dropped and quality has increased (which are related in this case as yields have improved greatly in the last few years), a market is opening for lower-quality, lower-priced LCD's. I bet this guy would be happy to pay $50 for a passive matrix, faulty-pixeled LCD.
Personally, I've been thinking it would be great to buy a small black-and-white or greyscale LCD to use on a headless server for those times I need a screen on it. It'd be a lot more convenient than lugging a huge (or even small) CRT around.
And how exactly are they being harmed? No one has a right to dignity, they have to attempt to earn it. It's like respect.
Let alone the fact that the person in question is no longer. She's *dead*. And famous for it.
Exactly who is harmed by studying these bones?
Which is the crux of the matter, isn't it? If a man can own Mickey Mouse, can't he sell it to a company?
That statement is irrational. Rationality doesn't depend on one's "view". Either something is or it isn't. The options I gave are the only rational ones (if there are more, I'd be happy to hear them). You are talking about what is considered the reasonable, which is subjective.
Why 14 years? Why not 3? Or how about 28? Perhaps it depends on the phase of the Moon at the time? My point being, why is 14 years the proper number?
Ah, and here we have the answer. 14 years is the optimal amount of time (well, if not optimal, at least "plenty") required for a person to continually create, while giving you the ability to take their work without payment. You see? Something for nothing. I'm just calling it what it is.
Should you only be able to make enough money to survive until your next paycheck? Why would you work hard? It's been said that the box office sales for The Fellowship of the Ring has already made back all the money that will be spent for the entire trilogy plus and extra 50%. So should New Line Cinemas be forced to release the entire trilogy now into the public domain? After all, now they can fund 4 films and have money left over!
Forcing things into the public domain is theft. You can cite all the good the public domain does (and I agree that the public domain is *great*). But to strike some form of balance is to try to balance an amount of theft for the common good vs not being a thief. How do you determine the balance? Who determines the balance.
Such a system (which is what we have now) simply becomes the creators lobbying against the consumers and vice versa for the rights to certain property.
And it's laughable to think that anyone could corner the market on food, water, air and shelter. Any system that allows that to happen is corrupt. A free market can't keep you from growing corn and raising cattle in your own backyard.