You misunderstand what it means to have a government. Your argument can easily be extended to the concept that there are no natural rights at all. The state owns you from the moment you are born (or conceived even) and that any rights and freedoms you have are a charitable concession made by the state so that you may be more productive.
This is a fallacy. The collective state consists of individuals, and the rules are established because individuals recognize each other's natural rights.
It's because the creator has a natural right to his creation that we have established copyright.
The part about it being for the common good is just some twaddle that had to be added to sell the idea to liberals, collectivists and other good for nothings.
Yeah, I'm also more than willing to buy that low-mileage BMW M3 I saw in the dealership parking lot. Problem is they wanted around 70K for it! Ridiculous! Who has that kind of money?
So the logical flow is leading me to getting some 15 year old street punk to steal the car for me.
That's not only cheaper, but more convenient too, compared to spending, what, like half a day signing some papers and making trips to the bank and stuff.
If you want only one track from the CD, maybe you don't like that artist? I've never reasoned that way; I find it alien. I would not buy anything from an artist if they can't put together 10 tracks, eight or more of which are great.
In the "good old days", bands made great albums. Now they make one or two good tracks, and next year, they will be making good 30 second soundbites, no doubt.
There is a traditional format for people who just like that one hit song: the "single". True, you can't find a single for every song you might like; only certain songs are chosen to be in that format. But, nevertheless, in the past decade, song downloads have pretty much killed the single. Even if a song is available as a single, people will rather just get it for free.
Oh, and people pirate entire albums. People who want all 10 tracks still turn to copying rather than purchasing a CD.
The number one ``marketing issue'' with the CD format is that the disc is a piece of hardware with a nonzero price tag.
You don't simply have a right to help yourself to something just because it is priced out of your range. Doing is is a legal problem, and not a marketing problem. Furthermore, pirates are accustomed to paying nothing at all, which is demonstrably less than what many of them can actually afford.
``AIDS is an on-line reference manual for authors and instructors, which contains definitions and explanations of most of the PLATO system features.'' [4-5]
Hardware uses power; what programs want is memory.
That's just your regular programs on your PC you're talking about, but these are programs which can think and take on human form (even though they were written to do mundane financial caculations). These kinds of programs do need power.
The code has to be a certain length in order to be unique, it has to be complex enough to take a while to crack, but write down one digit wrong (or slighly unreadable) and the code is invalid.
Firstly, note that stamps are not particularly secure against duplication (compared to, say, paper money). The benefit from counterfeiting stamps is small.
It's not hard to think of a scheme which uses relatively short codes which are hard to forge, especially if you have the luxury of maintaining a database.
When you receive the txt message, you create a database record out of various bits of information, including the date and some random ID. Digest the info by applying a digital signature, and take some bits from the signature to produce the code to be put on the letter.
The code is long enough that the space of valid codes is significantly smaller than the space of possible codes.
Give the user a month to use the code, after which it expires (the database object is destroyed). Expiring the codes keeps the space of valid codes small. Furthermore, when mail is processed, the object is also destroyed, or marked as invalid. (Analogous to stamping across a stamp).
Guessing a valid code is impractical. If the space of valid codes is 100X smaller than the space of possible codes, then you would have to send 100 pieces of correspondence with a guessed code just to get one piece through. If you think this is cheaper than just paying for postage and sending one copy, knock yourself out!
There is no scheme to crack because nothing you can do, short of breaking into the server, will cause a given code to exist in the database. The challenge is not of cracking the generation method, but of guessing, with a high probability, valid codes (that someone else paid for).
Furthermore, codes could be tied to location. To produce a code, you might have to enter your postal code, and the code might only be usable from drop-off locations in that postal code. So you have to not only guess a code that is valid *somewhere* in Sweden, but one that is valid for nearby post boxes.
Come to think of it, why is this a text message based scheme? So it can be mobile. What's the advantage of that? Well, look. You could go to a particular post office box where you want to drop off the mail. That post office box could have a special code. You would have to enter that code into your texted request to the server. The server would send you back a code which is tied to that post office box: you must write that on your letter and put the letter into that box only.
How big does a code have to be that is valid for one box only? That is valid only for a single collection round from that box? Four digits maybe? Five at most?
Did you read the part about how the bearings (I assume these were not made using the same process, but I am sure at some point they would be) are essentially embedded into the structure as it was built up around them? Guess what? That means you are SOL when they wear out.
Just because the frame is grown around the original bearings doesn't mean that a way can't be developed to remove the old ones and replace them.
You know your hip joint grew together with surrounding bone, yet we can replace that.:)
At some point someone is going to want a new bearing, and someone will find a way of making this cheaper than a complete replacement, while earning a profit for himself.
Water just replaces a bunch of volatile organic solvents used for applying the stuff. The resulting film is the same as from a non-water-borne coating.
The water-borne "Diamond Finish" product from Varathane (quite good) has been available for at least 20 years now, and not only in Canada.
A big mailing list such as "everyone-seattle-office" should be access controlled so that only certain people can send to it. If you receive mail because you are on the "everyone-seattle-office" alias, and accidentally hit Reply All, the "everyone-seattle-office" list should bounce your response: "Oops, you don't have permission to send to the everyone-seattle-office alias".
Problem solved. The office secretary doesn't have to remember to use Reply-To: or Bcc:, and neither does anyone else have to remember to use Reply for that message rather than the usual Reply All.
The reply-all command is the main, default way of replying.
Reply-single is for the rare special case when a question is broadcast to a list of people, such that the answers are private or mutually uninteresting.
Reply-all is critically important for most e-mails involving multiple people, because without it, you fragment the discussion. You the end up with the "what, you didn't get the e-mail???" type situations.
More than 90% of all replies that I send on a daily basis require Reply-All, and I use it habitually even for e-mails sent only to me. Why would I want to hide this behind an extra menu, or otherwise make it harder to invoke?
The best practice is to hit Reply All and train yourself to double check the list of recipients in light of the nature of the reply. If anything, it's the Reply command that ought to be harder to invoke, or eliminated entirely.
Re:Any random numbers would produce the same resul
on
What Pi Sounds Like
·
· Score: 1
That's kind of like saying that all J. S. Bach themes in C major are the same and you're hearing C major more than Bach.:)
Good idea, but too rigid and underdeveloped.
on
What Pi Sounds Like
·
· Score: 1
The piece could use modulation, instead of sticking with C major, which renders it rather boring. The PI theme could be interpreted with respect to other modes as well (minor, for starters). More material could be generated by using additional manipulations of the PI theme. The canon idea worked out, as well as playing a parallel voice at a slower multiple of the tempo. That still leaves tricks like inversions and reversals. You could always "mine" PI for more notes, of course. The chosen theme doesn't always have to be completely stated either. Fragments of it can be used, here and there.
Why the hell does this article quote a literature professor on the topic of the quality of scientific research? How the fuck would he know?
What's worse, a literature professor who thinks that "delegitimate" is a verb in the English language, and that "assorted high-and-mighty muckety-mucks who think they’re the boss of us" is a good way to express yourself.
“Some standard left arguments, combined with the left-populist distrust of ‘experts’ and ‘professionals’ and assorted high-and-mighty muckety-mucks who think they’re the boss of us, were fashioned by the right into a powerful device for delegitimating scientific research,” Michael Bérubé, a literature professor at Pennsylvania State University, said of this evolution recently in the journal Democracy.
A literature professor who thinks that "delegitimating" is a word, and can't think of a better way to express "who think they're the boss of us"?
You'd think you could find better sources for building a case that there is an attack on science, than quotes from some dim-witted, incompetent literature professor.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand what it means to have a government. Your argument can easily be extended to the concept that there are no natural rights at all. The state owns you from the moment you are born (or conceived even) and that any rights and freedoms you have are a charitable concession made by the state so that you may be more productive.
This is a fallacy. The collective state consists of individuals, and the rules are established because individuals recognize each other's natural rights.
It's because the creator has a natural right to his creation that we have established copyright.
The part about it being for the common good is just some twaddle that had to be added to sell the idea to liberals, collectivists and other good for nothings.
Extortion occurs when someone threatens you into giving them money. For instance, governments extort income tax from citizens.
Nobody threatens you into buying an entertainment item.
It is not called extortion when a buyer's bid is lower than a seller's ask.
If the seller won't lower the ask to cover more bids, that's not extortion either.
Yeah, I'm also more than willing to buy that low-mileage BMW M3 I saw in the dealership parking lot. Problem is they wanted around 70K for it! Ridiculous! Who has that kind of money?
So the logical flow is leading me to getting some 15 year old street punk to steal the car for me.
That's not only cheaper, but more convenient too, compared to spending, what, like half a day signing some papers and making trips to the bank and stuff.
If you want only one track from the CD, maybe you don't like that artist? I've never reasoned that way; I find it alien. I would not buy anything from an artist if they can't put together 10 tracks, eight or more of which are great.
In the "good old days", bands made great albums. Now they make one or two good tracks, and next year, they will be making good 30 second soundbites, no doubt.
There is a traditional format for people who just like that one hit song: the "single". True, you can't find a single for every song you might like; only certain songs are chosen to be in that format. But, nevertheless, in the past decade, song downloads have pretty much killed the single. Even if a song is available as a single, people will rather just get it for free.
Oh, and people pirate entire albums. People who want all 10 tracks still turn to copying rather than purchasing a CD.
The number one ``marketing issue'' with the CD format is that the disc is a piece of hardware with a nonzero price tag.
You don't simply have a right to help yourself to something just because it is priced out of your range. Doing is is a legal problem, and not a marketing problem. Furthermore, pirates are accustomed to paying nothing at all, which is demonstrably less than what many of them can actually afford.
But it's widely known that every fucking thing that CAN be promoted on the Internet, well, IS.
Now go back to smacking choir boys.
Being fat and producing tainted milk from eating processed crap is one job that won't be going overseas.
Why are they against porn being collected into a domain that they can easily block?
According to a 1981 dated Users Guide document.
http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/cdc/plato/97405900C_PLATO_Users_Guide_Apr81.pdf
``AIDS is an on-line reference manual for authors and instructors, which contains definitions and explanations of most of the PLATO system features.'' [4-5]
Hardware uses power; what programs want is memory.
That's just your regular programs on your PC you're talking about, but these are programs which can think and take on human form (even though they were written to do mundane financial caculations). These kinds of programs do need power.
The code has to be a certain length in order to be unique, it has to be complex enough to take a while to crack, but write down one digit wrong (or slighly unreadable) and the code is invalid.
Firstly, note that stamps are not particularly secure against duplication (compared to, say, paper money). The benefit from counterfeiting stamps is small.
It's not hard to think of a scheme which uses relatively short codes which are hard to forge, especially if you have the luxury of maintaining a database.
When you receive the txt message, you create a database record out of various bits of information, including the date and some random ID. Digest the info by applying a digital signature, and take some bits from the signature to produce the code to be put on the letter.
The code is long enough that the space of valid codes is significantly smaller than the space of possible codes.
Give the user a month to use the code, after which it expires (the database object is destroyed). Expiring the codes keeps the space of valid codes small. Furthermore, when mail is processed, the object is also destroyed, or marked as invalid. (Analogous to stamping across a stamp).
Guessing a valid code is impractical. If the space of valid codes is 100X smaller than the space of possible codes, then you would have to send 100 pieces of correspondence with a guessed code just to get one piece through. If you think this is cheaper than just paying for postage and sending one copy, knock yourself out!
There is no scheme to crack because nothing you can do, short of breaking into the server, will cause a given code to exist in the database. The challenge is not of cracking the generation method, but of guessing, with a high probability, valid codes (that someone else paid for).
Furthermore, codes could be tied to location. To produce a code, you might have to enter your postal code, and the code might only be usable from drop-off locations in that postal code. So you have to not only guess a code that is valid *somewhere* in Sweden, but one that is valid for nearby post boxes.
Come to think of it, why is this a text message based scheme? So it can be mobile. What's the advantage of that? Well, look. You could go to a particular post office box where you want to drop off the mail. That post office box could have a special code. You would have to enter that code into your texted request to the server. The server would send you back a code which is tied to that post office box: you must write that on your letter and put the letter into that box only.
How big does a code have to be that is valid for one box only? That is valid only for a single collection round from that box? Four digits maybe? Five at most?
Did you read the part about how the bearings (I assume these were not made using the same process, but I am sure at some point they would be) are essentially embedded into the structure as it was built up around them? Guess what? That means you are SOL when they wear out.
Just because the frame is grown around the original bearings doesn't mean that a way can't be developed to remove the old ones and replace them.
You know your hip joint grew together with surrounding bone, yet we can replace that. :)
At some point someone is going to want a new bearing, and someone will find a way of making this cheaper than a complete replacement, while earning a profit for himself.
A bamboo frame is not a bicycle.
I'd be impressed if they could make the sprockets and chain out of bamboo also, not to mention the wheels hubs, rims and spokes. :)
Water just replaces a bunch of volatile organic solvents used for applying the stuff. The resulting film is the same as from a non-water-borne coating.
The water-borne "Diamond Finish" product from Varathane (quite good) has been available for at least 20 years now, and not only in Canada.
Resin and fibers (nylon, carbon, ...).
The only news here is that process for growing from a nylon powder.
I thought jQuery was for distributing operations over the DOM using a CSS-like element selection syntax.
Maybe they mean "interactivity with Javascript" (which is made easier to program with utilities like jQuery).
What, all 5,000 of them? Wow ...
That's gonna attract throngs of developers!
A big mailing list such as "everyone-seattle-office" should be access controlled so that only certain people can send to it. If you receive mail because you are on the "everyone-seattle-office" alias, and accidentally hit Reply All, the "everyone-seattle-office" list should bounce your response: "Oops, you don't have permission to send to the everyone-seattle-office alias".
Problem solved. The office secretary doesn't have to remember to use Reply-To: or Bcc:, and neither does anyone else have to remember to use Reply for that message rather than the usual Reply All.
You don't have a clue.
The reply-all command is the main, default way of replying.
Reply-single is for the rare special case when a question is broadcast to a list of people, such that the answers are private or mutually uninteresting.
Reply-all is critically important for most e-mails involving multiple people, because without it, you fragment the discussion. You the end up with the "what, you didn't get the e-mail???" type situations.
More than 90% of all replies that I send on a daily basis require Reply-All, and I use it habitually even for e-mails sent only to me. Why would I want to hide this behind an extra menu, or otherwise make it harder to invoke?
The best practice is to hit Reply All and train yourself to double check the list of recipients in light of the nature of the reply. If anything, it's the Reply command that ought to be harder to invoke, or eliminated entirely.
That's kind of like saying that all J. S. Bach themes in C major are the same and you're hearing C major more than Bach. :)
The piece could use modulation, instead of sticking with C major, which renders it rather boring. The PI theme could be interpreted with respect to other modes as well (minor, for starters). More material could be generated by using additional manipulations of the PI theme. The canon idea worked out, as well as playing a parallel voice at a slower multiple of the tempo. That still leaves tricks like inversions and reversals. You could always "mine" PI for more notes, of course. The chosen theme doesn't always have to be completely stated either. Fragments of it can be used, here and there.
Why the hell does this article quote a literature professor on the topic of the quality of scientific research? How the fuck would he know?
What's worse, a literature professor who thinks that "delegitimate" is a verb in the English language, and that "assorted high-and-mighty muckety-mucks who think they’re the boss of us" is a good way to express yourself.
Quote from article:
“Some standard left arguments, combined with the left-populist distrust of ‘experts’ and ‘professionals’ and assorted high-and-mighty muckety-mucks who think they’re the boss of us, were fashioned by the right into a powerful device for delegitimating scientific research,” Michael Bérubé, a literature professor at Pennsylvania State University, said of this evolution recently in the journal Democracy.
A literature professor who thinks that "delegitimating" is a word, and can't think of a better way to express "who think they're the boss of us"?
You'd think you could find better sources for building a case that there is an attack on science, than quotes from some dim-witted, incompetent literature professor.
You've not encountered sophisticated trolls who actually have valid points and do not spew profanity.