You have both underestimated the amount of effort required to get the thing out of Earth orbit.
And overestimated the effect on the world's oceans. That link you gave says that island of garbage is 100 million tonnes of junk, do you really think the ISS will make a difference? (yes small things can make a difference if they are done a lot - waste dumps from cruise ships for example - but we aren't going to be de-orbiting a space station very often.)
it doesn't matter if the they also go to the liver and kidneys, because you don't zap the liver and kidneys with the X-rays anyway (assuming the tumor is elsewhere of course).
And you don't need to ionoize cancer cells, smacking them with the electrons from the metal will do the job.
Though of course this is someone who has "envisioned a prototype" which I think is the furthest from a working device I've ever heard described.
Lots of people get a new phone every X years and if they currently like the iPhone and possibly have a bunch paid for apps that only work on the iPhone then of course they'll buy an iPhone 5. Unless when it comes out it really sucks, but that's unlikely given Apple hasn't screwed it up yet.
If asked I'd say that yes I'll be buying Mass Effect 3 (though most likely after it has been out long enough to be discounted) even though for all I know they could release a tetris/tower defense hybrid and call is Mass Effect 3. I liked the first two so it seems a fair bet. I won't be pre-ordering and I'm sure these people aren't suggesting they'll pay for it right now before the hype starts...
The early arrivals get gold much cheaper than the later arrivals, which apparently was the only criteria for almost being a pyramid or ponzi scheme. That they get it for some cost that isn't zero makes no difference at all. That it takes more effort to pick a gold nugget off the ground than run a computer program makes no difference at all.
Do you know the difference between the terms "is" and "similar to". Hint: they aren't the same.
And yes Robin Hood would fit into the same basket as terrorism for the feature set being considered. As would many other things. But those other things (and Robin Hood) aren't as useful a comparison because the military isn't trying to fight them.
Unlikely to survive as a media mogul. Unable to survive as owner of said media. You know the normal usage as in : "Politican X is unlikely to survive sex with intern scandal".
The media is highly regulated in most places. If you are consider "unfit" then your company won't get approval to do things like takeovers (the BSkyB stuff for example). In fact in lost of places you can be deemed unfit to be on the board or be the CEO of such companies, in the UK for example has the Broadcasting Act of 1990:
""" 3)The Commission—
(a)shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and
(b)shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence; """ - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/3
Do you really think News would keep Murdoch on if it meant losing their broadcasting licenses? Or would they ditch him an an emergency meeting after the threat was made. Note that "person" includes actual people as well persons corporate and unincorporate.
that they are storing to use to login, to say a mail server, is an idiot (or I guess running on a super computer or ten). Only beaten in the idiot stakes by someone suggesting it would be a good idea.
You know the bit which talked about exactly that point and how you can't compare them because not everybody cares about the same things equally.
Most slashdotters are opposed to the RIAA's crackdown on music sharing
Please show the evidence for that. All I see is that "most slashdotters who comment on articles about the RIAA's craskdown on music sharing are opposed to it", which is a very different claim.
Yes in articles about the RIAA cracking down on music sharing the most popular opinion on slashdot is that copyright infringement is not theft.
Yes in articles about snooping browser histories the most popular opniion on slashdot is that such browser snooping if theft.
There is no inconsistancy or strangeness in both those things being true*. It isn't the same people. Some people are more interested in sharing music and hence make up the bulk of the opinion in articles about that. Different people (with overlap of course) are more interest in privacy and hence make up the bulk of the opinion in articles about that.
* Note: I'm not arguing one way or the other about those actually being "the slashdot opinion", I'm just taking the original claim.
Please explain how the great plan is consititutional in the first place. Given the consitutional basis of copyright law how does the copyrighting of some subset of facts come under the powers of the Government?
I don't need to have a solution to a problem in order to point out that some proposed solution is stupid.
"We should fix the problem of not being able to travel faster than the speed of light by murdering all the blue eyed people" - are you going to argue that in order to disagree with that statement you would have to have some other solution to the faster than light travel to propose?
I realise this is going to be confusing for you, but just try and stay with me:
Slashdot is not an individual. Slashdot is a collection of people of differing views and opinions.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copright is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copyright holder is theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is theft.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there's a difference between private data and public data. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there is no difference between private and public data and that "all information wants to be free".
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Obama is the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush was the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush and Obama are both reptilian aliens in disguise.
Thus you can't expect to get a consistent opinion. Slashdot itself has no opinion, the people involved in it have opinions.
You might seem to get a majority opinion shining through, but you can't compare them across areas. "Majority" may really just mean "loudest", the point remains the same.
For your example, a perfectly reasonable explanation would be that the "majority opnion" of people on slashdot who care enough about downloading music to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that it is not theft. And the "majority opinion" of the people on slashdot who care enough about data snooping by web based advertising networks to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that such snooping is theft of private data. This makes perfect sense, because *they are not the same people*. Or alternatively the "theft" being referred to in the data snooping case is that of privacy. In the music distribution case if someone downloads a copy of a song the original owner of the song has lost nothing - they still have their copy. In the data snooping case the original owner of the history has lost something - they no longer their privacy.
So there's two reasonable explanations of our observation, and there will be plenty more. So why are you confused by such a simple phenomenon?
So I can create an army of slugs with voting rights just by mixing in some human DNA? If I use dogs instead can we count in "dog years" for reaching voting age?
But they did something that you didn't give them an option to pay for, which is completely different than the case in question in which there is a price set for what was done (whether the activity was infringing is a whole other question).
How small does your penis have to be for this to compensate?
Naw, thats the guys who buy 5 mpg trucks and send him their gas money.
I think he has them beat too, from TFA:
The Arab sheikh has a taste for doing things on a large scale. He built the world's largest truck - eight times the size of the Dodge Power Wagon, with four bedrooms inside the cabin.
Slashdot Mirror
And English police give a shit about a German court ruling because?
Why would you need to ask permission to grab stuff that was broadcast publicly in the first place? (ignoring copyright issues for a minute).
Your sense of scales is way off.
You have both underestimated the amount of effort required to get the thing out of Earth orbit.
And overestimated the effect on the world's oceans. That link you gave says that island of garbage is 100 million tonnes of junk, do you really think the ISS will make a difference? (yes small things can make a difference if they are done a lot - waste dumps from cruise ships for example - but we aren't going to be de-orbiting a space station very often.)
You have a strange definition of "nudge", that usually implies something small not probably the largest space venture ever attempted.
it doesn't matter if the they also go to the liver and kidneys, because you don't zap the liver and kidneys with the X-rays anyway (assuming the tumor is elsewhere of course).
And you don't need to ionoize cancer cells, smacking them with the electrons from the metal will do the job.
Though of course this is someone who has "envisioned a prototype" which I think is the furthest from a working device I've ever heard described.
Cancer treatment already isn't cheap. The small amount of gold an platinum this would require will be swamped by the rounding error on the bill.
Lots of people get a new phone every X years and if they currently like the iPhone and possibly have a bunch paid for apps that only work on the iPhone then of course they'll buy an iPhone 5. Unless when it comes out it really sucks, but that's unlikely given Apple hasn't screwed it up yet.
If asked I'd say that yes I'll be buying Mass Effect 3 (though most likely after it has been out long enough to be discounted) even though for all I know they could release a tetris/tower defense hybrid and call is Mass Effect 3. I liked the first two so it seems a fair bet. I won't be pre-ordering and I'm sure these people aren't suggesting they'll pay for it right now before the hype starts...
And how does that make any different at all?
The early arrivals get gold much cheaper than the later arrivals, which apparently was the only criteria for almost being a pyramid or ponzi scheme. That they get it for some cost that isn't zero makes no difference at all. That it takes more effort to pick a gold nugget off the ground than run a computer program makes no difference at all.
Do you know the difference between the terms "is" and "similar to". Hint: they aren't the same.
And yes Robin Hood would fit into the same basket as terrorism for the feature set being considered. As would many other things. But those other things (and Robin Hood) aren't as useful a comparison because the military isn't trying to fight them.
The ad^Wpage views say otherwise.
And what do those first at a new gold discovery get? Oh yeah, more gold with much less work/cost than those who arrive later.
So physical gold mining is almost a pyramid scheme? And while physical gold mining technically isn't a Ponzi scheme...
Unlikely to survive as a media mogul. Unable to survive as owner of said media. You know the normal usage as in : "Politican X is unlikely to survive sex with intern scandal".
The media is highly regulated in most places. If you are consider "unfit" then your company won't get approval to do things like takeovers (the BSkyB stuff for example). In fact in lost of places you can be deemed unfit to be on the board or be the CEO of such companies, in the UK for example has the Broadcasting Act of 1990:
"""
3)The Commission—
(a)shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and
(b)shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence;
""" - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/3
Do you really think News would keep Murdoch on if it meant losing their broadcasting licenses? Or would they ditch him an an emergency meeting after the threat was made. Note that "person" includes actual people as well persons corporate and unincorporate.
Too heavy I would think. The ISS would need to use a lot more fuel for station keeping with a shuttle hanging off it all the time.
that they are storing to use to login, to say a mail server, is an idiot (or I guess running on a super computer or ten). Only beaten in the idiot stakes by someone suggesting it would be a good idea.
It's a term of art commonly used in the field for a very long time. That you don't like it really doesn't matter at all to anyone but you.
They are doing it right.
Why not try reading what I wrote?
You know the bit which talked about exactly that point and how you can't compare them because not everybody cares about the same things equally.
Please show the evidence for that. All I see is that "most slashdotters who comment on articles about the RIAA's craskdown on music sharing are opposed to it", which is a very different claim.
Yes in articles about the RIAA cracking down on music sharing the most popular opinion on slashdot is that copyright infringement is not theft.
Yes in articles about snooping browser histories the most popular opniion on slashdot is that such browser snooping if theft.
There is no inconsistancy or strangeness in both those things being true*. It isn't the same people. Some people are more interested in sharing music and hence make up the bulk of the opinion in articles about that. Different people (with overlap of course) are more interest in privacy and hence make up the bulk of the opinion in articles about that.
* Note: I'm not arguing one way or the other about those actually being "the slashdot opinion", I'm just taking the original claim.
I also didn't say all facts.
Please explain how the great plan is consititutional in the first place. Given the consitutional basis of copyright law how does the copyrighting of some subset of facts come under the powers of the Government?
I don't need to have a solution to a problem in order to point out that some proposed solution is stupid.
"We should fix the problem of not being able to travel faster than the speed of light by murdering all the blue eyed people" - are you going to argue that in order to disagree with that statement you would have to have some other solution to the faster than light travel to propose?
Clearly a bomb is an "attack", it wasn't someone mining the side of a mountain... So attack seems perfectly reasonable.
Given the size it's very unlikely to have been a simple murder. So terror seems perfectly reasonable too.
And did you seriously just imply that Timothy McVeighs actions were not a '"terror" attack'?
What a great idea! Let's make facts copyrightable. What could possibly go wrong?
I realise this is going to be confusing for you, but just try and stay with me:
Slashdot is not an individual. Slashdot is a collection of people of differing views and opinions.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copright is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that downloading music without approval of the copyright holder is theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is not theft. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that getting someone's browser history is theft.
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there's a difference between private data and public data. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that there is no difference between private and public data and that "all information wants to be free".
Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Obama is the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush was the best President in all of history. Some people who read and post on slashdot think that Bush and Obama are both reptilian aliens in disguise.
Thus you can't expect to get a consistent opinion. Slashdot itself has no opinion, the people involved in it have opinions.
You might seem to get a majority opinion shining through, but you can't compare them across areas. "Majority" may really just mean "loudest", the point remains the same.
For your example, a perfectly reasonable explanation would be that the "majority opnion" of people on slashdot who care enough about downloading music to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that it is not theft. And the "majority opinion" of the people on slashdot who care enough about data snooping by web based advertising networks to be involved in a discussion about that topic is that such snooping is theft of private data. This makes perfect sense, because *they are not the same people*. Or alternatively the "theft" being referred to in the data snooping case is that of privacy. In the music distribution case if someone downloads a copy of a song the original owner of the song has lost nothing - they still have their copy. In the data snooping case the original owner of the history has lost something - they no longer their privacy.
So there's two reasonable explanations of our observation, and there will be plenty more. So why are you confused by such a simple phenomenon?
So I can create an army of slugs with voting rights just by mixing in some human DNA? If I use dogs instead can we count in "dog years" for reaching voting age?
But they did something that you didn't give them an option to pay for, which is completely different than the case in question in which there is a price set for what was done (whether the activity was infringing is a whole other question).
Most people spend their lives working, finding a girlfriend, getting married, having children
Not in one of those countries they don't.
How small does your penis have to be for this to compensate?
Naw, thats the guys who buy 5 mpg trucks and send him their gas money.
I think he has them beat too, from TFA:
The Arab sheikh has a taste for doing things on a large scale. He built the world's largest truck - eight times the size of the Dodge Power Wagon, with four bedrooms inside the cabin.