As far as I know, a law is meant to help out a society, not hurt it. Ok, if this happened we'd have less drunk drivers on the road. But not significantly less! Reminds me of copy protection on CDs. If someone wants enough to download a song, they'll find it whether or not there's any sort of protection on it. It's one of those laws that are voted for so politicians can say they were "tough on drunk drivers."
For the DRUNK drivers, this would: 1)Stop some of them from being on the road 2)Be bypassed using some easy trick figured out within a week of them coming out. 3)If someone else does take the test for him and a rolling retest comes up, it's going to make the driver even more dangerous to people on the road (like talking on a cell phone and drunk driving at the same time)
For the NON-DRUNK driver: 1)Make New-Mexican cars practically unsellable in other states (provided stupidity isn't contagious across state lines). And if a New Mexican wants to sell their car, they're going to have to pay for removal themselves (which might be illegal) in order to even be competitive in a larger market. 2)Adds social drinking to the list of anxieties someone might have. Some people can have one drink and be near the limit (although not very impaired). Now those people won't have even a single drink at a restaurant. This is looking like an economically terrible bill. 3)Make it impossible for people with disabilities (lung problems) to drive someone else's car - and makes it a hastle for them to have something rigged in their own car. 4)Ever had your music on too loud and didn't notice your turn signal? What if something like that happened for your rolling retest? 5)Driver distraction - could make up for some of the traffic deaths in itself - but this time on completely innocent people and not drunk drivers. 6)Another movable part - well kind of. Imagine if you got in a fender bender and this thing disconnected. Or imagine if you spilled something on it. Or imagine if it just plain broke. Fuck driving to the auto shop, it's time to call a tow-truck. 7)Will look ugly and cluttery. 8)Will have to be paid for and installed by people moving into the state. 9)Could get out of calibration leaving people stranded - OR late for important classes/meetings, etc. OR could possibly scare the shit out of someone driving on a really busy dangerous road - when it screws up then close your eyes and hope against a 12-car pileup. 10)Will look stupid and non-animated and represent a move back in time for ease of driving. 11)You have to sit in your car for 30 seconds while it's cold and it won't have a chance to warm up. 12)Goodbye to auto-starters. 13)Slows down emergencies (My wife's having a baby and I had a beer 20 minutes ago. Oh well, let's just hope I can deliver!)
I could go on with even more stuff but the idea's clear here. This wouldn't stop all drunk driving, and most likely a way around this will be found very quickly (like finding vulnerabilities in the latest Microsoft OS). The roads would be a little safer, but it probably wouldn't be all THAT significant. It would work FOR the drunk drivers (not letting some of them drive, stopping them from getting in trouble with the law, saving some of their lives) but against many innocent citizens (problems with the machine, all the other reasons i listed above). I'm from Ohio originally, and I saw a very good idea - Special colored licence plates for previous drunk drivers. Now THAT'S a useful and safe and non-annoying and non-damaging deterrent. Tougher penalties on people dumb enough to drink and drive. Putting a burdon on sober people who ride with people who are knowingly drunk. Hiring more police for late night rounds.
There are SO many ways to help this problem, and the one New Mexico seems to be choosing won't do much but hurt the average, law abiding citizen. It's not much different than saying "People have AIDS. So now, everyone must always wear a condom during sex. New condoms will hav
...is having a LAN party/strength training session with all my friends. ...is having santa bring me an eliptical with a nintendo logo on it ...sweating while playing video games when my roommate's friends walk in
I mean seriously this thing has some wide ranging implications... Especially the modified USB version to make porn a more active activity!
The goal of a poll is to get a random sampling since they can't possibly interview every developer. Assuming that readers visit the site in the same proportion that they develop in, this is done pretty well. What MS did was shift that proportion and thus mess up the poll. But, since ZDnet claimed that double voters were blocked, everyone still got one vote. And since many of the people at MS will be using.NET, they really didn't cheat or lie. They just lowered the credibility of the poll. That's the same thing as hearing of a poll and visiting the site just to vote and show your support. That, too could be considered tainting the poll since it messes up the random distribution of site visitors. In short: Online polls mean nothing.
I think they are just ASKING for their songs to be put all over the internet. If it can be played, it can be ripped. Makes me want to download the entire CD and share it on a p2p network just so that cd will be the most copied cd ever!
I'm currently a student at the University of Michigan. We also need to have 4th semester proficiency in a foreign language. I plan on double majoring in mathematics and computer science. Originally, I thought the same thing: "foreign language is bullshit for a math major." I'm currently reading a book called, "The Math Gene," which says that we use the same part of our brain to do math as we use to do language. Early in the book, it says this:
"Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built in advantage over American and European children? (Yes)" I'm assuming since the book is linking language and math that it is referring to Chinese and Japanese languages. This is just one example of why learning other subjects can make you better in a particular subject.
I have the Thunder K7 and I haven't had one problem with stability yet. I haven't had a problem in over a month so far, running Windows 2000. I'm running 2x Athlon MP @ 1.2GHz. I'm really happy with this machine. It really heats up the room, though. I have 5 extra case fans and the ones in the back blow out very hot air. That's the only downside to it so far.
if encryption is made to have holes in it, it will simply make it so that the government can read everything that we do at the cost of terrorists finding another way to communicate.
Maybe it's the fact that they will always be gathering evidence against some future crime that I haven't committed. Maybe it's the fact that the video doesn't lie. Maybe it's the fact that it's now people against computers and not people against people. Maybe it's the fact that our lives will become too systematic. I don't really know, but a system where it is impossible to do anything without being recorded will sure make life boring. You can't goof around in a store with your friends anymore. You can't do anything that others don't think is right anymore. We will all be drones. That's why I don't like stuff like this.
How could that be when the article said that the cars could be turned off if they go places they shouldn't?
Even though the speed limit of the car has nothing to with the speed limit of the road, it still seems like the company is taking the law into their own hands. Either that or they were lying when they said they weren't doing it for money. Instead of putting a governer onto the car, a device which simply limits car speed to a certain speed, they allow the car to break the speed so they can monitor it. Installing some expensive GPS device for a reason like that can only say one thing - they are trying to swindle money ouf of their customers. Their logic can be shown with one statement. "Because speeding drivers pose no realistic threat to our company (or the drivers themselves), we can operate under the false premise that they do, allow people to speed and then fine their brains out on the grounds that speeding is deadly."
I forget where, but I once read that when the speed limit was raised in certain areas, the number of accidents atually went down. /whois John Galt
You could also use the formula for generating the nth number in the fibonacci sequence. It's on the internet... if you want it just do a search. It's pretty interesting. /whois John Galt
The answer to that question should point you to the answer of the real question: why? The school officials aren't stupid, they aren't being ignorant, they are being smart. They, like everyone else, realize that Sean is not a threat by any standard. The problem here is not a problem of common sense. It is not a problem of logic. It is a problem of liability. Look at the past school shootings. Every single one of them go like this: "A student today shot four students dead. His friend's dad heard the kid mention it 8 years ago and let it slip by. The people at the school and the parents should learn not to let these warning signs slip by."
The blame goes to the schools, the parents and other students - more than the kid himself. The schools then have no choice but to get rid of the kids. They will look irresponsible if they don't. It seems to me that this vast liability is just a black hole - not even common sense can escape.
Another thing I can't understand: Why do they suspend kids for doing such insignificant things when, after a school shooting happens, they never look back at the whole thing and say: "The student even pointed a fish stick at his teacher and said 'bang'"? They always say things that most would consider a problem. What is wrong with these stupid schools?
I agree with Baz Luhrmann when he said "the real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind - the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday" People are looking for problems where they aren't any and are still missing the real ones.
There have been many comments that say all science is math. There have also been quite a few that say all science is physics. I think we should just ignore this article and simply say that (all science == all science). A marine biologist isn't going to have a new insight into string theory, and a mathmetician isn't going to fix the problem with cloned animals having damaged DNA. Every science is its own realm, and in order to be successful, you often have to draw from other sciences. It's that simple. Afterall, it's not the computer scientist that comes up with new ideas in neurobiology, it's the computer scientist that aids the neurobiologist in building a computer model of his theory.
Forget things like supply and demand, forget economics, forget common sense. Napster has some pure insight. What we are talking about today will someday be called "napsterism". Napster is among the first companies in the world to realize that service and profit are inversely proportional! In the head of the average person, this means nothing, but when this simple fact is given to Napster, its implications begin to arise.
Yes, my friend. Napster has come up with an ingenious solution. It will get the RIAA off their back and they will make huge amounts of money. See, when napster had a good service, they made no money. If you apply the simple principle mentioned above, you, like napster will arive at the same answer: In order to make money, napster must nearly eliminate all service whatsoever.
They will still make money from the poor people who decide to pay. It will be nearly impossible for anyone to use the thing anymore. In the near future, we will go onto napster, and, without any reference, type in "HeEcYbcYj", which means Metallica. Most people wouldn't be able to figure it out. But hey, they are paying for Napster - It has the best name of all the file sharing programs. This is where it gets even better. Books like "Zen and the art of using napster", "Finding songs for dummies", and even "God's little instruction book on Napster" will be released in order to cure "innapsteracy", which will be a growing problem in America.
In the end, Napster won't be good for anything except for the schooling of con-artists. You won't be able to get any songs that are popular, it will be slow as hell, nobody will use it anyway, but Napster will have made some money. The music industry won't care anymore - napster has been removed as a threat - and they got paid 1 billion dollars. Napster won't die, it will live in the name of all scams throughout the USA!
It all ended on that day
When a few actually wanted to pay
And Napster gave in
To Big Brother's whim
That day Napster could no longer stay.
__________________________________________
The people that are willing to pay for napster are the people that don't know how to download MP3s from other sources. The reason for this is probably that they aren't exactly computer junkies. They probably don't spend much time on their computers and therefore don't get mp3s to play them on their computer. They get them to put them on CDs and play them in their car or whatever. Napster will kill themselves by becoming a slave to the music industry. Why would anyone pay for napster to get stupid songs that they can't play anywhere but their computer? After the first few months of their subscription service, subscribers will probably die down once they realize how stupid it is with a small user pool and altered songs.
I don't know how many costs they would have, but I don't see them making a huge amount of profit with this plan. They could even go bankrupt. They really only have two logical options: Close now or keep up the legal battles. It's obvious their only reasoning behind this move is to please the music industry, their enemy. Yes, Napster is a business, but this move doesn't look very businesslike - Napster is basically letting the music industry control them. Whatever they do, the music industry will be watching them. If napster doesn't go bankrupt, it will just turn into a place like cdnow.com, except you can't even get CDs from it. It's the napster self-destruction.
Though the electorial college system of electing the president may have some very small flaws in it (It being possible to lose the election while winning the popular vote), it is an ingenious solution to some of the problems of going strictly with a popular vote. Actually, the good part about our election today is that it is winner take all. If it wasn't winner take all (as in electorial votes), then the electorial college wouldn't be much different than a popular vote. I understand that the reason the electorial college was created was because our founding fathers felt we were not compitent to vote. Though this is largely different today (with the advent of mass media, etc.), the winner take all system does a great job of getting more ideas represented by an elected official.
In majoritarian politics (popular vote), the minorities get no say. This is because of the fact that whatever is wanted by most of the people is what the politicians will do. It is probably possible to win the country by totally ignoring the midwest section of the US, because they don't have a great populations. Because of this, the candidates never have to visit any of the midwest states, or even talk about issues that concern the midwest. The people that live there will still probably pick one of the two. That is why going with a strict popular vote is bad.
The electorial college without the winner take all system is equally as bad for sone of the same reasons. But adding the winner take all system seems to clear up most of the problems. Take the following situation: There is a small state, like Iowa that only has 7 electorial votes. One politician has 55% of the votes, while the other has 45%. Without the winner take all system, the candidate that is losing the state will probably not visit the state, because the visit isn't worth 1 or 2 votes. On the other hand, if we have the winner take all system, the candidate will probably give more attention to the state, because there is 7 votes at stake, not 2. When the candidates try to win the state, they will "come to the middle" and try to support as many issues that the statesmen support.
When a state doesn't get visited, hardly any of its views gets into office, which defeats the entire democracy (republic?). A democracy should be a system in which candidates compete for a vote. Just like in business, competition always makes things better for the buyer, or in this case, the voter. The winner take all system will usually (not always, as in this year) reflect the entire country's ideas, but always help minorities and small states out. Even though with majoritarian politics, one vote may seem like more, for minorities and small states, it is essentially a wasted vote. You are voting for someone that probably isn't going to support your region anyway. By the way, when I say wasted vote, I don't really mean it in a bad way. The only possible way to waste a vote is to vote on somebody just because everyone else is voting for him. If you like a small party candidate, go for it.
Though the electorial college system of electing the president may have some very small flaws in it (It being possible to lose the election while winning the popular vote), it is an ingenious solution to some of the problems of going strictly with a popular vote. Actually, the good part about our election today is that it is winner take all. If it wasn't winner take all (as in electorial votes), then the electorial college wouldn't be much different than a popular vote. I understand that the reason the electorial college was created was because our founding fathers felt we were not compitent to vote. Though this is largely different today (with the advent of mass media, etc.), the winner take all system does a great job of getting more ideas represented by an elected official.
In majoritarian politics (popular vote), the minorities get no say. This is because of the fact that whatever is wanted by most of the people is what the politicians will do. It is probably possible to win the country by totally ignoring the midwest section of the US, because they don't have a great populations. Because of this, the candidates never have to visit any of the midwest states, or even talk about issues that concern the midwest. The people that live there will still probably pick one of the two. That is why going with a strict popular vote is bad.
The electorial college without the winner take all system is equally as bad for sone of the same reasons. But adding the winner take all system seems to clear up most of the problems. Take the following situation: There is a small state, like Iowa that only has 7 electorial votes. One politician has 55% of the votes, while the other has 45%. Without the winner take all system, the candidate that is losing the state will probably not visit the state, because the visit isn't worth 1 or 2 votes. On the other hand, if we have the winner take all system, the candidate will probably give more attention to the state, because there is 7 votes at stake, not 2. When the candidates try to win the state, they will "come to the middle" and try to support as many issues that the statesmen support.
When a state doesn't get visited, hardly any of its views gets into office, which defeats the entire democracy (republic?). A democracy should be a system in which candidates compete for a vote. Just like in business, competition always makes things better for the buyer, or in this case, the voter. The winner take all system will usually (not always, as in this year) reflect the entire country's ideas, but always help minorities and small states out. Even though with majoritarian politics, one vote may seem like more, for minorities and small states, it is essentially a wasted vote. You are voting for someone that probably isn't going to support your region anyway. By the way, when I say wasted vote, I don't really mean it in a bad way. The only possible way to waste a vote is to vote on somebody just because everyone else is voting for him. If you like a small party candidate, go for it.
How big of a threat do you really think something like this would get? Surely very close to 100% of napster's users support it. At the time I'm sending this message, there are 519,427 files on the napster server i'm connected to. I doubt something like this would ever get big enough to even place 10,000 bird songs (or whatever they are) onto napster. Even if 10,000 songs were added to the server, that would make there 520,427 songs. That would make up for less than 2% of the total songs. Yes, that is a large amount, but not even close to catastrophic to napster. If one was really concerned about it, they could just play the song as it is downloading!
as computers become more complex, more and more of what is really going on is encapsulated. If you first used a computer back in the days of DOS, you had to learn about things like directories and command line arguments just so you could use the computer. When you were a kid, just to be able to get a computer to work, you had to have some basic knowledge. Now, people using computers can just put a cd in, click install, sit there, and see an Icon pop up. They don't have to even know what a directory is to use a computer in its most basic (advanced) forms. Beginner computer users today aren't any dumber, they just don't have to know as much as before. That's why it may be hard to learn c++; people are trying to "go through the motions" instead of actually understanding what's going on. Lucilly, for me, I'm not good at just going through the motions, so I have to understand what I'm doing in order to succeed in it. I think the problem isn't that people are dumb, or that they just CAN'T learn something like c++. The problem is that many people don't think and don't explore, not because they aren't capable, but because they don't have to. Computers, like everything else, are being made easier and easier, so people don't need to know as much. People think of computers in terms of buttons and Icons, not in terms of the more basic things.
I know I've repeated myself several times in this post. I'm only in high school, and, I've only been programming c++ for about a year or so. In fact, my first computer was running windows 95, so I don't really know what it was like in the "old days" of computing. If my opinion sounds flawed or just stupid, please set me straight!
You all shouldn't be mad at anyone for this, afterall, what we have done IS against the law. I do use napster, and I, like everybody else, is shielded by shear strength in numbers. Napster is shielded by pretty much nothing. Remember, they are in a heavy lawsuit, and they are going to do whatever they can in order to win it. Banning users is a way of expressing that they are trying to remove illegal files. The way the law is written, napster is responsible if they are neglegent, and ignore problems as they come up. If they remove those users, they are a step closer to winning the lawsuit. Also, why should anyone be mad at Metallica? This whole thing isn't about money (At least I don't think so). It's about people getting away with things that they souldn't. Metallica is standing up for the entire Industry just as we are all standing up for napster. You have to put yourself in their shoes. The ban has noting to do with the software on your computer. Every single file size is the same as people who aren't banned. Our registry keys are the same. I even erased napster from the registry, created new user, and it still detected me as being banned. Download Napigator, and connect to another napster server. You can get Napigator at www.download.com. When connecting to another server, I got on fine, and when I switched back to a server run by napster, no luck. I cannot easilly reconfigure my IP, so I don't know if that's what they check for. What else is there to check for that is changeable? I have done everything except swap network cards, but, I doubt the ban would go that deep. Nobody has to worry, MP3s are alive and kicking. Either us napigator to connect to a different napster server, or use gnutella, which I think is better than Napter. You can get this at www.zeropaid.com. There are a comparable number of MP3s there, and it works great. I agree with trying to get back onto napster run servers, but it ticks me off when people say something like "Metallica Sucks", when they don't. The reason people say it is that they stole some of their songs and got caught. When you do something that's wrong, you just HAVE to understand a few things. You won't be able to do it forever (At least probabaly not). It is not an entitled right for you to do it. Assume Murphy's law that says that Everyting that can go wrong will. It is up to you, the user, to deal with it. BTW - When Metallica's next album comes out, I'll be the first one with the MP3s:)
I read somewhere that napster isn't breaking the law if they show evidence of "trying" to remove people with illegal material. Given that napster usernames can be created very easilly, a mass ban just may help napster in the RIAA suit. The people who get banned shouldn't have much of a problem creating a new user. Metallica may have opened the door for napster!
Slashdot Mirror
If I was a moderator, I'd mod you up.
As far as I know, a law is meant to help out a society, not hurt it. Ok, if this happened we'd have less drunk drivers on the road. But not significantly less! Reminds me of copy protection on CDs. If someone wants enough to download a song, they'll find it whether or not there's any sort of protection on it. It's one of those laws that are voted for so politicians can say they were "tough on drunk drivers."
For the DRUNK drivers, this would:
1)Stop some of them from being on the road
2)Be bypassed using some easy trick figured out within a week of them coming out.
3)If someone else does take the test for him and a rolling retest comes up, it's going to make the driver even more dangerous to people on the road (like talking on a cell phone and drunk driving at the same time)
For the NON-DRUNK driver:
1)Make New-Mexican cars practically unsellable in other states (provided stupidity isn't contagious across state lines). And if a New Mexican wants to sell their car, they're going to have to pay for removal themselves (which might be illegal) in order to even be competitive in a larger market.
2)Adds social drinking to the list of anxieties someone might have. Some people can have one drink and be near the limit (although not very impaired). Now those people won't have even a single drink at a restaurant. This is looking like an economically terrible bill.
3)Make it impossible for people with disabilities (lung problems) to drive someone else's car - and makes it a hastle for them to have something rigged in their own car.
4)Ever had your music on too loud and didn't notice your turn signal? What if something like that happened for your rolling retest?
5)Driver distraction - could make up for some of the traffic deaths in itself - but this time on completely innocent people and not drunk drivers.
6)Another movable part - well kind of. Imagine if you got in a fender bender and this thing disconnected. Or imagine if you spilled something on it. Or imagine if it just plain broke. Fuck driving to the auto shop, it's time to call a tow-truck.
7)Will look ugly and cluttery.
8)Will have to be paid for and installed by people moving into the state.
9)Could get out of calibration leaving people stranded - OR late for important classes/meetings, etc. OR could possibly scare the shit out of someone driving on a really busy dangerous road - when it screws up then close your eyes and hope against a 12-car pileup.
10)Will look stupid and non-animated and represent a move back in time for ease of driving.
11)You have to sit in your car for 30 seconds while it's cold and it won't have a chance to warm up.
12)Goodbye to auto-starters.
13)Slows down emergencies (My wife's having a baby and I had a beer 20 minutes ago. Oh well, let's just hope I can deliver!)
I could go on with even more stuff but the idea's clear here. This wouldn't stop all drunk driving, and most likely a way around this will be found very quickly (like finding vulnerabilities in the latest Microsoft OS). The roads would be a little safer, but it probably wouldn't be all THAT significant. It would work FOR the drunk drivers (not letting some of them drive, stopping them from getting in trouble with the law, saving some of their lives) but against many innocent citizens (problems with the machine, all the other reasons i listed above). I'm from Ohio originally, and I saw a very good idea - Special colored licence plates for previous drunk drivers. Now THAT'S a useful and safe and non-annoying and non-damaging deterrent. Tougher penalties on people dumb enough to drink and drive. Putting a burdon on sober people who ride with people who are knowingly drunk. Hiring more police for late night rounds.
There are SO many ways to help this problem, and the one New Mexico seems to be choosing won't do much but hurt the average, law abiding citizen. It's not much different than saying "People have AIDS. So now, everyone must always wear a condom during sex. New condoms will hav
...is having a LAN party/strength training session with all my friends.
...is having santa bring me an eliptical with a nintendo logo on it
...sweating while playing video games when my roommate's friends walk in
I mean seriously this thing has some wide ranging implications... Especially the modified USB version to make porn a more active activity!
The goal of a poll is to get a random sampling since they can't possibly interview every developer. Assuming that readers visit the site in the same proportion that they develop in, this is done pretty well. What MS did was shift that proportion and thus mess up the poll. But, since ZDnet claimed that double voters were blocked, everyone still got one vote. And since many of the people at MS will be using .NET, they really didn't cheat or lie. They just lowered the credibility of the poll. That's the same thing as hearing of a poll and visiting the site just to vote and show your support. That, too could be considered tainting the poll since it messes up the random distribution of site visitors. In short: Online polls mean nothing.
I think they are just ASKING for their songs to be put all over the internet. If it can be played, it can be ripped. Makes me want to download the entire CD and share it on a p2p network just so that cd will be the most copied cd ever!
I'm currently a student at the University of Michigan. We also need to have 4th semester proficiency in a foreign language. I plan on double majoring in mathematics and computer science. Originally, I thought the same thing: "foreign language is bullshit for a math major." I'm currently reading a book called, "The Math Gene," which says that we use the same part of our brain to do math as we use to do language. Early in the book, it says this:
"Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built in advantage over American and European children? (Yes)" I'm assuming since the book is linking language and math that it is referring to Chinese and Japanese languages. This is just one example of why learning other subjects can make you better in a particular subject.
I have the Thunder K7 and I haven't had one problem with stability yet. I haven't had a problem in over a month so far, running Windows 2000. I'm running 2x Athlon MP @ 1.2GHz. I'm really happy with this machine. It really heats up the room, though. I have 5 extra case fans and the ones in the back blow out very hot air. That's the only downside to it so far.
if encryption is made to have holes in it, it will simply make it so that the government can read everything that we do at the cost of terrorists finding another way to communicate.
That all these sites are down because of the slashdot effect.
If you're looking for a place to donate your parts or computers, you could try http://www.pcsforkids.org/
Maybe it's the fact that they will always be gathering evidence against some future crime that I haven't committed. Maybe it's the fact that the video doesn't lie. Maybe it's the fact that it's now people against computers and not people against people. Maybe it's the fact that our lives will become too systematic. I don't really know, but a system where it is impossible to do anything without being recorded will sure make life boring. You can't goof around in a store with your friends anymore. You can't do anything that others don't think is right anymore. We will all be drones. That's why I don't like stuff like this.
How could that be when the article said that the cars could be turned off if they go places they shouldn't?
Even though the speed limit of the car has nothing to with the speed limit of the road, it still seems like the company is taking the law into their own hands. Either that or they were lying when they said they weren't doing it for money. Instead of putting a governer onto the car, a device which simply limits car speed to a certain speed, they allow the car to break the speed so they can monitor it. Installing some expensive GPS device for a reason like that can only say one thing - they are trying to swindle money ouf of their customers. Their logic can be shown with one statement. "Because speeding drivers pose no realistic threat to our company (or the drivers themselves), we can operate under the false premise that they do, allow people to speed and then fine their brains out on the grounds that speeding is deadly."
I forget where, but I once read that when the speed limit was raised in certain areas, the number of accidents atually went down.
/whois John Galt
You could also use the formula for generating the nth number in the fibonacci sequence. It's on the internet... if you want it just do a search. It's pretty interesting.
/whois John Galt
The answer to that question should point you to the answer of the real question: why? The school officials aren't stupid, they aren't being ignorant, they are being smart. They, like everyone else, realize that Sean is not a threat by any standard. The problem here is not a problem of common sense. It is not a problem of logic. It is a problem of liability. Look at the past school shootings. Every single one of them go like this: "A student today shot four students dead. His friend's dad heard the kid mention it 8 years ago and let it slip by. The people at the school and the parents should learn not to let these warning signs slip by."
The blame goes to the schools, the parents and other students - more than the kid himself.
The schools then have no choice but to get rid of the kids. They will look irresponsible if they don't. It seems to me that this vast liability is just a black hole - not even common sense can escape.
Another thing I can't understand: Why do they suspend kids for doing such insignificant things when, after a school shooting happens, they never look back at the whole thing and say: "The student even pointed a fish stick at his teacher and said 'bang'"? They always say things that most would consider a problem. What is wrong with these stupid schools?
I agree with Baz Luhrmann when he said "the real troubles in your life are apt to be things that never crossed your worried mind - the kind that blindside you at 4pm on some idle Tuesday" People are looking for problems where they aren't any and are still missing the real ones.
/whois John Galt
There have been many comments that say all science is math. There have also been quite a few that say all science is physics. I think we should just ignore this article and simply say that (all science == all science). A marine biologist isn't going to have a new insight into string theory, and a mathmetician isn't going to fix the problem with cloned animals having damaged DNA. Every science is its own realm, and in order to be successful, you often have to draw from other sciences. It's that simple. Afterall, it's not the computer scientist that comes up with new ideas in neurobiology, it's the computer scientist that aids the neurobiologist in building a computer model of his theory.
/whois John Galt
Forget things like supply and demand, forget economics, forget common sense. Napster has some pure insight. What we are talking about today will someday be called "napsterism". Napster is among the first companies in the world to realize that service and profit are inversely proportional! In the head of the average person, this means nothing, but when this simple fact is given to Napster, its implications begin to arise.
Yes, my friend. Napster has come up with an ingenious solution. It will get the RIAA off their back and they will make huge amounts of money. See, when napster had a good service, they made no money. If you apply the simple principle mentioned above, you, like napster will arive at the same answer: In order to make money, napster must nearly eliminate all service whatsoever.
They will still make money from the poor people who decide to pay. It will be nearly impossible for anyone to use the thing anymore. In the near future, we will go onto napster, and, without any reference, type in "HeEcYbcYj", which means Metallica. Most people wouldn't be able to figure it out. But hey, they are paying for Napster - It has the best name of all the file sharing programs. This is where it gets even better. Books like "Zen and the art of using napster", "Finding songs for dummies", and even "God's little instruction book on Napster" will be released in order to cure "innapsteracy", which will be a growing problem in America.
In the end, Napster won't be good for anything except for the schooling of con-artists. You won't be able to get any songs that are popular, it will be slow as hell, nobody will use it anyway, but Napster will have made some money. The music industry won't care anymore - napster has been removed as a threat - and they got paid 1 billion dollars. Napster won't die, it will live in the name of all scams throughout the USA!
/whois John Galt
The University of Michigan has a page devoted to this very topic. It may be just for that school, but it will probably be informative. It is
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/cse/diff2.html
/whois John Galt
It all ended on that day
When a few actually wanted to pay
And Napster gave in
To Big Brother's whim
That day Napster could no longer stay.
__________________________________________
The people that are willing to pay for napster are the people that don't know how to download MP3s from other sources. The reason for this is probably that they aren't exactly computer junkies. They probably don't spend much time on their computers and therefore don't get mp3s to play them on their computer. They get them to put them on CDs and play them in their car or whatever. Napster will kill themselves by becoming a slave to the music industry. Why would anyone pay for napster to get stupid songs that they can't play anywhere but their computer? After the first few months of their subscription service, subscribers will probably die down once they realize how stupid it is with a small user pool and altered songs.
I don't know how many costs they would have, but I don't see them making a huge amount of profit with this plan. They could even go bankrupt. They really only have two logical options: Close now or keep up the legal battles. It's obvious their only reasoning behind this move is to please the music industry, their enemy. Yes, Napster is a business, but this move doesn't look very businesslike - Napster is basically letting the music industry control them. Whatever they do, the music industry will be watching them. If napster doesn't go bankrupt, it will just turn into a place like cdnow.com, except you can't even get CDs from it. It's the napster self-destruction.
/whois John Galt
2001-03-18 11:34:00
That's my guess. Right there. 11:34 is a scary time. (I don't worship the devil.)
/whois John Galt
Though the electorial college system of electing the president may have some very small flaws in it (It being possible to lose the election while winning the popular vote), it is an ingenious solution to some of the problems of going strictly with a popular vote. Actually, the good part about our election today is that it is winner take all. If it wasn't winner take all (as in electorial votes), then the electorial college wouldn't be much different than a popular vote. I understand that the reason the electorial college was created was because our founding fathers felt we were not compitent to vote. Though this is largely different today (with the advent of mass media, etc.), the winner take all system does a great job of getting more ideas represented by an elected official. In majoritarian politics (popular vote), the minorities get no say. This is because of the fact that whatever is wanted by most of the people is what the politicians will do. It is probably possible to win the country by totally ignoring the midwest section of the US, because they don't have a great populations. Because of this, the candidates never have to visit any of the midwest states, or even talk about issues that concern the midwest. The people that live there will still probably pick one of the two. That is why going with a strict popular vote is bad. The electorial college without the winner take all system is equally as bad for sone of the same reasons. But adding the winner take all system seems to clear up most of the problems. Take the following situation: There is a small state, like Iowa that only has 7 electorial votes. One politician has 55% of the votes, while the other has 45%. Without the winner take all system, the candidate that is losing the state will probably not visit the state, because the visit isn't worth 1 or 2 votes. On the other hand, if we have the winner take all system, the candidate will probably give more attention to the state, because there is 7 votes at stake, not 2. When the candidates try to win the state, they will "come to the middle" and try to support as many issues that the statesmen support. When a state doesn't get visited, hardly any of its views gets into office, which defeats the entire democracy (republic?). A democracy should be a system in which candidates compete for a vote. Just like in business, competition always makes things better for the buyer, or in this case, the voter. The winner take all system will usually (not always, as in this year) reflect the entire country's ideas, but always help minorities and small states out. Even though with majoritarian politics, one vote may seem like more, for minorities and small states, it is essentially a wasted vote. You are voting for someone that probably isn't going to support your region anyway. By the way, when I say wasted vote, I don't really mean it in a bad way. The only possible way to waste a vote is to vote on somebody just because everyone else is voting for him. If you like a small party candidate, go for it.
Though the electorial college system of electing the president may have some very small flaws in it (It being possible to lose the election while winning the popular vote), it is an ingenious solution to some of the problems of going strictly with a popular vote. Actually, the good part about our election today is that it is winner take all. If it wasn't winner take all (as in electorial votes), then the electorial college wouldn't be much different than a popular vote. I understand that the reason the electorial college was created was because our founding fathers felt we were not compitent to vote. Though this is largely different today (with the advent of mass media, etc.), the winner take all system does a great job of getting more ideas represented by an elected official.
In majoritarian politics (popular vote), the minorities get no say. This is because of the fact that whatever is wanted by most of the people is what the politicians will do. It is probably possible to win the country by totally ignoring the midwest section of the US, because they don't have a great populations. Because of this, the candidates never have to visit any of the midwest states, or even talk about issues that concern the midwest. The people that live there will still probably pick one of the two. That is why going with a strict popular vote is bad.
The electorial college without the winner take all system is equally as bad for sone of the same reasons. But adding the winner take all system seems to clear up most of the problems. Take the following situation: There is a small state, like Iowa that only has 7 electorial votes. One politician has 55% of the votes, while the other has 45%. Without the winner take all system, the candidate that is losing the state will probably not visit the state, because the visit isn't worth 1 or 2 votes. On the other hand, if we have the winner take all system, the candidate will probably give more attention to the state, because there is 7 votes at stake, not 2. When the candidates try to win the state, they will "come to the middle" and try to support as many issues that the statesmen support.
When a state doesn't get visited, hardly any of its views gets into office, which defeats the entire democracy (republic?). A democracy should be a system in which candidates compete for a vote. Just like in business, competition always makes things better for the buyer, or in this case, the voter. The winner take all system will usually (not always, as in this year) reflect the entire country's ideas, but always help minorities and small states out. Even though with majoritarian politics, one vote may seem like more, for minorities and small states, it is essentially a wasted vote. You are voting for someone that probably isn't going to support your region anyway. By the way, when I say wasted vote, I don't really mean it in a bad way. The only possible way to waste a vote is to vote on somebody just because everyone else is voting for him. If you like a small party candidate, go for it.
How big of a threat do you really think something like this would get? Surely very close to 100% of napster's users support it. At the time I'm sending this message, there are 519,427 files on the napster server i'm connected to. I doubt something like this would ever get big enough to even place 10,000 bird songs (or whatever they are) onto napster. Even if 10,000 songs were added to the server, that would make there 520,427 songs. That would make up for less than 2% of the total songs. Yes, that is a large amount, but not even close to catastrophic to napster. If one was really concerned about it, they could just play the song as it is downloading!
as computers become more complex, more and more of what is really going on is encapsulated. If you first used a computer back in the days of DOS, you had to learn about things like directories and command line arguments just so you could use the computer. When you were a kid, just to be able to get a computer to work, you had to have some basic knowledge. Now, people using computers can just put a cd in, click install, sit there, and see an Icon pop up. They don't have to even know what a directory is to use a computer in its most basic (advanced) forms. Beginner computer users today aren't any dumber, they just don't have to know as much as before. That's why it may be hard to learn c++; people are trying to "go through the motions" instead of actually understanding what's going on. Lucilly, for me, I'm not good at just going through the motions, so I have to understand what I'm doing in order to succeed in it. I think the problem isn't that people are dumb, or that they just CAN'T learn something like c++. The problem is that many people don't think and don't explore, not because they aren't capable, but because they don't have to. Computers, like everything else, are being made easier and easier, so people don't need to know as much. People think of computers in terms of buttons and Icons, not in terms of the more basic things.
I know I've repeated myself several times in this post. I'm only in high school, and, I've only been programming c++ for about a year or so. In fact, my first computer was running windows 95, so I don't really know what it was like in the "old days" of computing. If my opinion sounds flawed or just stupid, please set me straight!
You all shouldn't be mad at anyone for this, afterall, what we have done IS against the law. I do use napster, and I, like everybody else, is shielded by shear strength in numbers. Napster is shielded by pretty much nothing. Remember, they are in a heavy lawsuit, and they are going to do whatever they can in order to win it. Banning users is a way of expressing that they are trying to remove illegal files. The way the law is written, napster is responsible if they are neglegent, and ignore problems as they come up. If they remove those users, they are a step closer to winning the lawsuit. :)
Also, why should anyone be mad at Metallica? This whole thing isn't about money (At least I don't think so). It's about people getting away with things that they souldn't. Metallica is standing up for the entire Industry just as we are all standing up for napster. You have to put yourself in their shoes.
The ban has noting to do with the software on your computer. Every single file size is the same as people who aren't banned. Our registry keys are the same. I even erased napster from the registry, created new user, and it still detected me as being banned. Download Napigator, and connect to another napster server. You can get Napigator at www.download.com. When connecting to another server, I got on fine, and when I switched back to a server run by napster, no luck. I cannot easilly reconfigure my IP, so I don't know if that's what they check for. What else is there to check for that is changeable? I have done everything except swap network cards, but, I doubt the ban would go that deep. Nobody has to worry, MP3s are alive and kicking. Either us napigator to connect to a different napster server, or use gnutella, which I think is better than Napter. You can get this at www.zeropaid.com. There are a comparable number of MP3s there, and it works great. I agree with trying to get back onto napster run servers, but it ticks me off when people say something like "Metallica Sucks", when they don't. The reason people say it is that they stole some of their songs and got caught. When you do something that's wrong, you just HAVE to understand a few things. You won't be able to do it forever (At least probabaly not). It is not an entitled right for you to do it. Assume Murphy's law that says that Everyting that can go wrong will. It is up to you, the user, to deal with it. BTW - When Metallica's next album comes out, I'll be the first one with the MP3s
I read somewhere that napster isn't breaking the law if they show evidence of "trying" to remove people with illegal material. Given that napster usernames can be created very easilly, a mass ban just may help napster in the RIAA suit. The people who get banned shouldn't have much of a problem creating a new user. Metallica may have opened the door for napster!