It isn't anything to do with the religion though, it is a fairly recent development from a historical point of view.
Actually it is. More of us have actually started to be able to read the Bible for ourselves. In the past it was someone else telling us what the Bible said. Yes there are violent bits in the Bible, but generally if you concentrate on the "follow Jesus" stuff (which you are supposed to), you'd be a fairly peaceable, turn-the-other-cheek sort. And you can see the results for yourself, nonbelievers can insult Jesus or use his name as an expletive without great fear of reprisals.
Even if most Christians don't actually read the Bible or know it well, the fact that they could easily do so restrains their leaders more. Because some smart aleck could say, hey but Jesus told us to do something different in the Gospel of Matthew. Analogy: it's like Linux, only a few read the source, but only Wackos would dare claim Linux has features that it doesn't.
In contrast many of the muslims don't actually understand Arabic. And many are still firmly believe that there should not be translations of the Quran/Koran, which is ridiculous since you'd still end up with one, just now it's from some guy in a village rather than a group of guys who know their stuff far better. Furthermore Arabic must have changed in 1400+ years. They are still fixated on the form than the substance (see what happened to Yusman Roy as an example).
To back that up: many muslims can actually recite the Quran without understanding it, that's what they study in their religious studies- how to recite the Quran. Then someone comes and gives them his pet interpretation of it, and it's hard for them to know whether he's wrong or right about what the Quran actually says.
Christians around the world can just look at Jesus's Beatitudes and the rest of what he did, and to see that this Quran burning thing is just not how you do stuff.
It sure is not a sign of humility or meekness or peacemaking. Sure it says blessed if you are insulted, but only if it's because of Jesus, not because you're trying to do something that's certainly not peacemaking. All the stuff about burning scrolls etc in the bible, were burning your own stuff as a sign of repentance (turning from your old ways) or stuff[1] in Israel (which was/is to be a holy nation).
This guy bought a book from a different religion and then burns it knowing that 1.5 billion people will take it as an insult.
[1]Even the initial genocidal war against the Canaanites was a judgement against the Canaanites (which came after 400 years) and the Israelites were warned that a similar thing would happen to them if they broke their contract with God. They broke it, and it did happen to them.
Does that make it unpalatable to Americans? You betcha.
That's not actually the biggest problem. The problem with crappy soldiers like that is:
1) You get the general population against you. 2) Genocide nowadays is not such a viable candidate if you need to trade with lots of other countries and their support. And the survivors will "never" forgive you, it'll take many generations.
they give in to the urge to behave like animals.
There's the problem, it's not a shortage of soldiers, it's too many bad soldiers. You CANNOT afford to keep shooting the wrong people/targets.
It takes very brave and professional soldiers to be careful to err on the safe side and not shoot people when their own lives are under threat.
You screw up, next thing you know an entire village is now against you. They may not say to your face, but they now want you out. Previously they might have been neutral. After your screw up, building bridges etc isn't going to win them so easily. You are foreigners, if both foreigners and locals are screwing up, most will prefer the locals.
Screw up enough times and you lose the entire country. I think the US has lost Afghanistan and it's just a matter of time. The morale of the Taliban is higher than that of the US soldiers. Their soldiers take their losses better, they believe in what they are doing, they have supplies and support, they now control most parts of Afghanistan even if not officially.
It's easier for the Taliban to not make mistakes, when in doubt just shoot the guys in the US uniform instead of some brown guy in a shalwar kameez.
Such wars are not easy to win. In my country (Malaysia) they moved many entire villages to new villages ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency ). Foreigners did come in to fight and they did an overall good job, yes there were mistakes, but they were definitely not making trophies out of civilians.
The US can't fight it the way it fought Vietnam. They lost that war. They wouldn't have won. Soldiers in such wars cannot be trigger happy idiots. You need soldiers who would behave professionally.
Maybe they only want the really stupid victims? There are benefits from that approach you know, as long as there are enough candidates in that category.
So far there appear to be no shortage of stupid and ignorant people.
What you could do is have the sender have two or more antennas and the receiver too. Then put the antennas in different physical locations.
If you know where exactly they are, it'll be much harder to jam, you can use all sorts of tricks to deal with the jamming.
It's just like someone trying to jam your eyes by shining a randomly flickering bright light in your general direction. Assuming what they are sending is not bright enough to destroy your receivers (in which case why bother jamming), you could just have two or more people standing in different places and trying not to "look" in the wrong directions (or shield their "eyes"), and try to just look at the sending antennas and then recording down what they see, then combining the results to figure out what the actual message was.
Maybe I'm biased but IMO there really is a statistically difference between the religions. Yes Christians do lots of bad stuff, but like an atheist friend of mine says, one of the reasons he makes fun of Christians is because he's more likely to not get into trouble (compared to less forgiving religions;) ).
So given the same people but a different religion, I daresay you'd get a worse outcome:).
Look at the crazy nut who wants to burn a Koran/Quran, and look at the response of the other Christians to him. Imagine this crazy nut with a different religion. I think even if he was an atheist he'd still be a crazy nut (he'd still find something to hate).
And see the response of the muslims when someone wants to burn the Koran (or their ironic response to the Muhammad cartoons). In contrast look at the response of the christians when their churches actually get burnt by muslims, or when christians get killed. The percentage of violent retaliation/reprisals is much lower.
Because if you at least try to follow Jesus, even if you do fail most of the time, on average you'd still be generally heading/drifting in a more peaceful direction. And so even if we are wrong and there really is no God, overall I think the world is actually a better place for it.
He also appears like someone who might be able to fight better than the other guy:).
I think there's a high correlation between the ability to dance and a subset of skills required to fight.
1) Balance 2) Ability to control many/all of your limbs well keep them in sync to do "everything" in time on the dot. Do stuff on the beat, or hit someone really hard at a specific spot. 3) etc
Most humans have evolved to have a large section of their digestive systems outside their body.
That section is sometimes called a kitchen.
And this prestomach is why we don't need as huge teeth, jaws or gizzards (plus grit) to eat certain foods, compared to other animals who don't have a prestomach. It also allows us to eat (and live on) a wider variety of foods than we would otherwise - the prestomach can help reduce toxicity, increase palatibility and nutrient uptake.
Because this prestomach is not attached to our body we are more mobile in some ways, and less mobile in other ways.
A human without a prestomach is a bit like a cow with one less stomach. The cow might still survive, but it is less likely to thrive (unless it has access to a special diet).
If the videos are good samples of what they used, then the research is kinda crap for proving what the summary claimed, which was: "the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs."
Either that or the videos are mislabelled. Because the "good video" sure has a lot more arm flailing and rapid leg movement than the bad one.
But it is coordinated arm and leg "flailing". Where coordinated in this case = the ability to precisely move multiple things at the same time, an maintain the same rhythm/tempo. Though different parts may have different speeds, periods, they are still moving to the same "beat/tempo".
Even I can make up some bullshit about dancing too: A guy dancing with his elbows really close to his torso while moving his hands might seem more girly to other guys.
Macho guys aren't afraid to expose the pheromones from their "charmpits";).
Funny thing is sometimes you wait a year or two and: 1) The C guy still hasn't finished the job either (at least not got all the annoying bugs out). 2) Intel and friends now let you use Python to do the job;).
Not usually true (hopefully;) ) but, a few years ago I wrote some TCP/IP servers/services in Perl and they performed OK, it wasn't my stuff that was falling apart regularly due to load, unexpected/malicious input, etc.
Thanks go out to Intel, AMD and the DRAM bunch:).
The smart phones are already more powerful than many old PC desktops still creaking on merrily...
> As for the indents that people are talking about, tabs are more reasonable now than they used to be, but you're giving up screen space for them
Why would you be giving up screen space with tabs? On most text editors for programming people can adjust the tabs to display as whatever indentation they want. So if someone wants to view tabs as 2 spaces and another prefers 4 and another prefers 8, they don't have to change anything in the code if their editors are already set up for that.
The disadvantage of tabs is where you have some stuff that requires you to use spaces in (text string etc) and for some reason you want certain parts of it to align with your indents. Or you are mixing your indentation - spaces and tabs (try not to do that OK? ).
Yep many (not all) electric helicopters don't have that much power and can't fly that fast - if they did they wouldn't be safe for beginners (and flying those in small indoors spaces would take more skill).
So just a brisk outdoor breeze would be faster than their top speed, hence they'll be blown away...
I have an esky lama v3, and it's fun, but more hassle to fly. So I actually fly a smaller helis indoors. Cheap and fun. My latest is a "jin xing da" model 331 heli. It even has an accelerometer ("gyro"), so it controls pretty well, but doesn't fly as fast as one of my earlier small helis (which was lighter).
This Quadricopter thingy though has a lot more intelligence - seems you can push it around and it'll try to go back...
Only for a very short period have creators in general really been making money their copyrighted work. Copyrights have mostly just benefited the distributors and the monopolists, not the actual creators.
Just look at how much most musicians get from their labels after those infamous accounting methods (similar to Hollywood accounting). In the past distribution and marketing was expensive, so perhaps some of it was justified, but nowadays with technology distribution of music is cheap (and marketing just needs someone clever to make it "viral"). The distributors now provide very little value add to the creators and are more parasites than symbiotes.
If the markets have grown and the cost of marketing and distribution has gone down why has copyright protection kept getting longer and longer and more and more extensive?
Same for the movie, book and software industries. Avatar made 1 billion in about a month. Does it need 120 years? Similar for all the other blockbusters. I cannot believe the costs Hollywood and the Music Industry cite for producing stuff. There's plenty of evidence they are lying.
So nowadays the main benefit copyright provides to a creator is you don't have to compete against your old stuff as much. Once you stop supplying your old stuff, your fans/users will have to do with your new slightly crappier stuff. How does that encourage people do to better?
Supposedly copyright is so that people would be creating more works. But you can see for yourself, great musicians, artists, programmers, etc will create stuff whether or not they are paid for it. They will create stuff for fun, or even because they feel internally driven to do it.
> > and their net benefits to society aren't proven. > What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?
Copyrights won't scale well and would put a greater cost on us when we have artificial memories and virtual telepathy. This is not far off given that neural interfaces are improving. We are already in the prelim stage with smartphones and other tech. Monopolists will try to charge us more than a penny for "their" thoughts, whenever we try to recall or share something. They will try to DRM our brain and body augmenters, but for what benefit and whose benefit? You would be paying more for less functionality and freedom. Compare email vs SMS.
Is it worth taxing or even crippling more and more people for the benefit of a few? I say no.
In theory copyright can benefit society, in practice does it? And in the future I claim it will cost society more than it benefits it. Hosts can certainly survive with parasites sucking their blood. But just because they can doesn't mean the parasite is providing a benefit to the host, and doesn't meant things can't be better.
If you are a creator and want to make money from your stuff: 1) make it easy for people to find out about you - obscurity is your enemy 2) make stuff many people will like 3) make it easy for people to pay you
The Monopolists don't really help with 1) - often their interests are not aligned with yours, and they want too much for their "help". They want you to be their slave.
There's a difference between copying and plagiarizing.
Passing off someone's work as yours involves lying or misrepresentation. And "thou shalt not bear false witness" has been around for thousands of years.
> Meanwhile, much of the problem will stop when the developed world kindly stops selling greedy warlords automatic weapons and all the ammo they can carry.
That bit is not true though. The machete has been used to kill millions and needs no ammo.
I even saw a pic of a recent war/"clash" in Africa where a number of people were armed with bows, the rest with whatever they've got.
As long as someone can convince other people to kill many you'll have wars.
> DISA mandates that LAN and WLAN interfaces on a machine can't be active at the same time
Does that really help security that much?
Many banks over here have basic network isolation - certain PCs and networks have zero Internet or other outside connectivity, yes it does affect productivity. There's a bank where people have to leave their PCs and go to another PC for googling or other internet access. That sucks in many ways, but I'm sure the DoD can afford more PCs per person and a better setup, if they sacked just a few dangerously/expensively incompetent people.
People who can't keep secrets when using certain technologies either shouldn't be using those technologies or shouldn't be allowed to handle those secrets. Assuming they can't be trained to handle the tech securely.
The Gov likes certification and tests right, so just create some tests, so even if a Big Shot can't pass those tests well too bad he's going to have to get his secret stuff via old-style paper workflow. If that affects productivity too much, "promote" Big Shot to somewhere where he can't cause as much damage. That's assuming your secrets are that important to keep.
Most Big Bosses are not expected to know how to operate a crane or a backhoe safely and effectively. If it's vital for their job, well then make sure they can do it. If it's not important then don't let them do it.
If the secrets aren't important enough for such strict measures, why the fuck should you care if the rest of the world gets them? They are clearly not that important.
Anyway in most cases, you get the right person to get close to some Blabbermouth and he'll be bragging about the secrets...
I think their target market is "cheap", not "best".
The "lifesaver" water bottle may save lives, but a few very rich lives:).
This "tea bag" thing may not produce water as pure or safe, but might save many more lives if it really is cheaper, easy to use and practical.
FWIW the 100% way to prevent many trillions of human deaths is to kill all humans now, so be careful if you ever ask a super smart AI to minimize the long term total number of human deaths per year;).
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't anything to do with the religion though, it is a fairly recent development from a historical point of view.
Actually it is. More of us have actually started to be able to read the Bible for ourselves. In the past it was someone else telling us what the Bible said. Yes there are violent bits in the Bible, but generally if you concentrate on the "follow Jesus" stuff (which you are supposed to), you'd be a fairly peaceable, turn-the-other-cheek sort. And you can see the results for yourself, nonbelievers can insult Jesus or use his name as an expletive without great fear of reprisals.
Even if most Christians don't actually read the Bible or know it well, the fact that they could easily do so restrains their leaders more. Because some smart aleck could say, hey but Jesus told us to do something different in the Gospel of Matthew. Analogy: it's like Linux, only a few read the source, but only Wackos would dare claim Linux has features that it doesn't.
In contrast many of the muslims don't actually understand Arabic. And many are still firmly believe that there should not be translations of the Quran/Koran, which is ridiculous since you'd still end up with one, just now it's from some guy in a village rather than a group of guys who know their stuff far better. Furthermore Arabic must have changed in 1400+ years. They are still fixated on the form than the substance (see what happened to Yusman Roy as an example).
To back that up: many muslims can actually recite the Quran without understanding it, that's what they study in their religious studies- how to recite the Quran. Then someone comes and gives them his pet interpretation of it, and it's hard for them to know whether he's wrong or right about what the Quran actually says.
Christians around the world can just look at Jesus's Beatitudes and the rest of what he did, and to see that this Quran burning thing is just not how you do stuff.
It sure is not a sign of humility or meekness or peacemaking. Sure it says blessed if you are insulted, but only if it's because of Jesus, not because you're trying to do something that's certainly not peacemaking. All the stuff about burning scrolls etc in the bible, were burning your own stuff as a sign of repentance (turning from your old ways) or stuff[1] in Israel (which was/is to be a holy nation).
This guy bought a book from a different religion and then burns it knowing that 1.5 billion people will take it as an insult.
[1]Even the initial genocidal war against the Canaanites was a judgement against the Canaanites (which came after 400 years) and the Israelites were warned that a similar thing would happen to them if they broke their contract with God. They broke it, and it did happen to them.
Does that make it unpalatable to Americans? You betcha.
That's not actually the biggest problem. The problem with crappy soldiers like that is:
1) You get the general population against you.
2) Genocide nowadays is not such a viable candidate if you need to trade with lots of other countries and their support. And the survivors will "never" forgive you, it'll take many generations.
they give in to the urge to behave like animals.
There's the problem, it's not a shortage of soldiers, it's too many bad soldiers. You CANNOT afford to keep shooting the wrong people/targets.
It takes very brave and professional soldiers to be careful to err on the safe side and not shoot people when their own lives are under threat.
You screw up, next thing you know an entire village is now against you. They may not say to your face, but they now want you out. Previously they might have been neutral. After your screw up, building bridges etc isn't going to win them so easily. You are foreigners, if both foreigners and locals are screwing up, most will prefer the locals.
Screw up enough times and you lose the entire country. I think the US has lost Afghanistan and it's just a matter of time. The morale of the Taliban is higher than that of the US soldiers. Their soldiers take their losses better, they believe in what they are doing, they have supplies and support, they now control most parts of Afghanistan even if not officially.
It's easier for the Taliban to not make mistakes, when in doubt just shoot the guys in the US uniform instead of some brown guy in a shalwar kameez.
Such wars are not easy to win. In my country (Malaysia) they moved many entire villages to new villages ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency ). Foreigners did come in to fight and they did an overall good job, yes there were mistakes, but they were definitely not making trophies out of civilians.
The US can't fight it the way it fought Vietnam. They lost that war. They wouldn't have won. Soldiers in such wars cannot be trigger happy idiots. You need soldiers who would behave professionally.
Maybe they only want the really stupid victims? There are benefits from that approach you know, as long as there are enough candidates in that category.
So far there appear to be no shortage of stupid and ignorant people.
What you could do is have the sender have two or more antennas and the receiver too. Then put the antennas in different physical locations.
If you know where exactly they are, it'll be much harder to jam, you can use all sorts of tricks to deal with the jamming.
It's just like someone trying to jam your eyes by shining a randomly flickering bright light in your general direction. Assuming what they are sending is not bright enough to destroy your receivers (in which case why bother jamming), you could just have two or more people standing in different places and trying not to "look" in the wrong directions (or shield their "eyes"), and try to just look at the sending antennas and then recording down what they see, then combining the results to figure out what the actual message was.
Well Christians are imperfect people too.
;) ).
:).
Maybe I'm biased but IMO there really is a statistically difference between the religions. Yes Christians do lots of bad stuff, but like an atheist friend of mine says, one of the reasons he makes fun of Christians is because he's more likely to not get into trouble (compared to less forgiving religions
So given the same people but a different religion, I daresay you'd get a worse outcome
Look at the crazy nut who wants to burn a Koran/Quran, and look at the response of the other Christians to him. Imagine this crazy nut with a different religion. I think even if he was an atheist he'd still be a crazy nut (he'd still find something to hate).
And see the response of the muslims when someone wants to burn the Koran (or their ironic response to the Muhammad cartoons). In contrast look at the response of the christians when their churches actually get burnt by muslims, or when christians get killed. The percentage of violent retaliation/reprisals is much lower.
Because if you at least try to follow Jesus, even if you do fail most of the time, on average you'd still be generally heading/drifting in a more peaceful direction. And so even if we are wrong and there really is no God, overall I think the world is actually a better place for it.
> "Satan has a hold of your life and you must pray it away"
:)
:).
Christians should concentrate on practicing love, like Jesus commanded.
Lots of Christians like to say love the sinner, hate the sin, but they're not very good at doing it.
Better to just do the love part and let God do the hating and punishing sin part. Hey less work for us right?
But what do I know, I'm just a crappy lazy Christian
He also appears like someone who might be able to fight better than the other guy :).
I think there's a high correlation between the ability to dance and a subset of skills required to fight.
1) Balance
2) Ability to control many/all of your limbs well keep them in sync to do "everything" in time on the dot. Do stuff on the beat, or hit someone really hard at a specific spot.
3) etc
Most humans have evolved to have a large section of their digestive systems outside their body.
That section is sometimes called a kitchen.
And this prestomach is why we don't need as huge teeth, jaws or gizzards (plus grit) to eat certain foods, compared to other animals who don't have a prestomach. It also allows us to eat (and live on) a wider variety of foods than we would otherwise - the prestomach can help reduce toxicity, increase palatibility and nutrient uptake.
Because this prestomach is not attached to our body we are more mobile in some ways, and less mobile in other ways.
A human without a prestomach is a bit like a cow with one less stomach. The cow might still survive, but it is less likely to thrive (unless it has access to a special diet).
If the videos are good samples of what they used, then the research is kinda crap for proving what the summary claimed, which was: "the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs."
;).
Either that or the videos are mislabelled. Because the "good video" sure has a lot more arm flailing and rapid leg movement than the bad one.
But it is coordinated arm and leg "flailing". Where coordinated in this case = the ability to precisely move multiple things at the same time, an maintain the same rhythm/tempo. Though different parts may have different speeds, periods, they are still moving to the same "beat/tempo".
Even I can make up some bullshit about dancing too:
A guy dancing with his elbows really close to his torso while moving his hands might seem more girly to other guys.
Macho guys aren't afraid to expose the pheromones from their "charmpits"
You past the lying with your wife stage already?
Funny thing is sometimes you wait a year or two and: ;).
;) ) but, a few years ago I wrote some TCP/IP servers/services in Perl and they performed OK, it wasn't my stuff that was falling apart regularly due to load, unexpected/malicious input, etc.
:).
1) The C guy still hasn't finished the job either (at least not got all the annoying bugs out).
2) Intel and friends now let you use Python to do the job
Not usually true (hopefully
Thanks go out to Intel, AMD and the DRAM bunch
The smart phones are already more powerful than many old PC desktops still creaking on merrily...
Well the universe is something for free already.
:).
Whether you like it or not is a different issue
> As for the indents that people are talking about, tabs are more reasonable now than they used to be, but you're giving up screen space for them
Why would you be giving up screen space with tabs? On most text editors for programming people can adjust the tabs to display as whatever indentation they want. So if someone wants to view tabs as 2 spaces and another prefers 4 and another prefers 8, they don't have to change anything in the code if their editors are already set up for that.
The disadvantage of tabs is where you have some stuff that requires you to use spaces in (text string etc) and for some reason you want certain parts of it to align with your indents. Or you are mixing your indentation - spaces and tabs (try not to do that OK? ).
Yes, there'd be far fewer accidents since you would reduce the number of planes flying (and passengers too).
Yep many (not all) electric helicopters don't have that much power and can't fly that fast - if they did they wouldn't be safe for beginners (and flying those in small indoors spaces would take more skill).
So just a brisk outdoor breeze would be faster than their top speed, hence they'll be blown away...
I have an esky lama v3, and it's fun, but more hassle to fly. So I actually fly a smaller helis indoors. Cheap and fun. My latest is a "jin xing da" model 331 heli. It even has an accelerometer ("gyro"), so it controls pretty well, but doesn't fly as fast as one of my earlier small helis (which was lighter).
This Quadricopter thingy though has a lot more intelligence - seems you can push it around and it'll try to go back...
How about Ryanair elimate their CEO position? That'll save some money too.
I do not think it is ridiculous to suggest that an AI could replace their CEO.
Democracy at work. No surprise when you have voters that are a diverse population of greatly varying backgrounds, interests, etc.
;).
Might help if the median+average education levels and critical thinking levels were higher though
Then at least you have a good reason when voting for or against someone.
Not because you think that person is X or did Y even though he/she isn't and didn't!
> Since the 18th century.
Only for a very short period have creators in general really been making money their copyrighted work. Copyrights have mostly just benefited the distributors and the monopolists, not the actual creators.
Just look at how much most musicians get from their labels after those infamous accounting methods (similar to Hollywood accounting). In the past distribution and marketing was expensive, so perhaps some of it was justified, but nowadays with technology distribution of music is cheap (and marketing just needs someone clever to make it "viral"). The distributors now provide very little value add to the creators and are more parasites than symbiotes.
If the markets have grown and the cost of marketing and distribution has gone down why has copyright protection kept getting longer and longer and more and more extensive?
Same for the movie, book and software industries. Avatar made 1 billion in about a month. Does it need 120 years? Similar for all the other blockbusters. I cannot believe the costs Hollywood and the Music Industry cite for producing stuff. There's plenty of evidence they are lying.
So nowadays the main benefit copyright provides to a creator is you don't have to compete against your old stuff as much. Once you stop supplying your old stuff, your fans/users will have to do with your new slightly crappier stuff. How does that encourage people do to better?
Supposedly copyright is so that people would be creating more works. But you can see for yourself, great musicians, artists, programmers, etc will create stuff whether or not they are paid for it. They will create stuff for fun, or even because they feel internally driven to do it.
> > and their net benefits to society aren't proven.
> What would you consider proof? How would you go about proving or disproving it?
Copyrights won't scale well and would put a greater cost on us when we have artificial memories and virtual telepathy. This is not far off given that neural interfaces are improving. We are already in the prelim stage with smartphones and other tech. Monopolists will try to charge us more than a penny for "their" thoughts, whenever we try to recall or share something. They will try to DRM our brain and body augmenters, but for what benefit and whose benefit? You would be paying more for less functionality and freedom. Compare email vs SMS.
Is it worth taxing or even crippling more and more people for the benefit of a few? I say no.
In theory copyright can benefit society, in practice does it? And in the future I claim it will cost society more than it benefits it. Hosts can certainly survive with parasites sucking their blood. But just because they can doesn't mean the parasite is providing a benefit to the host, and doesn't meant things can't be better.
If you are a creator and want to make money from your stuff:
1) make it easy for people to find out about you - obscurity is your enemy
2) make stuff many people will like
3) make it easy for people to pay you
The Monopolists don't really help with 1) - often their interests are not aligned with yours, and they want too much for their "help". They want you to be their slave.
There's a difference between copying and plagiarizing.
Passing off someone's work as yours involves lying or misrepresentation. And "thou shalt not bear false witness" has been around for thousands of years.
Copying someone's stuff doesn't necessarily involve lying.
Anticopying laws in contrast haven't been around that long, and their net benefits to society aren't proven.
> Meanwhile, much of the problem will stop when the developed world kindly stops selling greedy warlords automatic weapons and all the ammo they can carry.
That bit is not true though. The machete has been used to kill millions and needs no ammo.
I even saw a pic of a recent war/"clash" in Africa where a number of people were armed with bows, the rest with whatever they've got.
As long as someone can convince other people to kill many you'll have wars.
All depends on the drivers you have, and what they expect.
In Germany they even have crazy towns that got rid of most of its traffic signs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf-O5o4aqcs
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0331/What-happens-when-you-remove-all-traffic-signs-A-German-town-finds-out
But somehow it works OK.
In Netherlands too: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2008/0625/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents
In India many don't seem to care much about traffic signs either, so is that the same thing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
Would that system work well in China? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw-ZlHXs4Q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj4LrSxjTIM
I'm sure he doesn't mind buying _a_ TV for all Americans.
;).
Teaching them how to share better is the hard part
> DISA mandates that LAN and WLAN interfaces on a machine can't be active at the same time
Does that really help security that much?
Many banks over here have basic network isolation - certain PCs and networks have zero Internet or other outside connectivity, yes it does affect productivity. There's a bank where people have to leave their PCs and go to another PC for googling or other internet access. That sucks in many ways, but I'm sure the DoD can afford more PCs per person and a better setup, if they sacked just a few dangerously/expensively incompetent people.
People who can't keep secrets when using certain technologies either shouldn't be using those technologies or shouldn't be allowed to handle those secrets. Assuming they can't be trained to handle the tech securely.
The Gov likes certification and tests right, so just create some tests, so even if a Big Shot can't pass those tests well too bad he's going to have to get his secret stuff via old-style paper workflow. If that affects productivity too much, "promote" Big Shot to somewhere where he can't cause as much damage. That's assuming your secrets are that important to keep.
Most Big Bosses are not expected to know how to operate a crane or a backhoe safely and effectively. If it's vital for their job, well then make sure they can do it. If it's not important then don't let them do it.
If the secrets aren't important enough for such strict measures, why the fuck should you care if the rest of the world gets them? They are clearly not that important.
Anyway in most cases, you get the right person to get close to some Blabbermouth and he'll be bragging about the secrets...
I on the other hand assume the US DoD was just making another lame attempt at getting more public money.
They hardly ever get punished for it, so why would they stop trying?
And waaaay more expensive?
:).
;).
I think their target market is "cheap", not "best".
The "lifesaver" water bottle may save lives, but a few very rich lives
This "tea bag" thing may not produce water as pure or safe, but might save many more lives if it really is cheaper, easy to use and practical.
FWIW the 100% way to prevent many trillions of human deaths is to kill all humans now, so be careful if you ever ask a super smart AI to minimize the long term total number of human deaths per year