Have you ever heard of a Free Market? I don't mean the buzzword political idiots throw around, but the actual economic ideal of Free Market. Essentially it's an economic utopia where anyone can enter any product/service market and compete. Like all utopias, it never has existed, and probably never will. Look at the costs to enter into such a business, and then look at the regulations that prevent you from doing so in many places. Those are barriers to entry that prevent most of us from ever doing such a thing. We do NOT have a Free Market, we have something else, but I'm not sure which is the right economist term for it. So just saying "go start your own business" or "go do it yourself" isn't feasible in this, and most other circumstances we might want to.
I know they covered all this stuff back in my high school days. Have they really fallen that far in education quality now?
Not to mention certain companies have lobbied (bought off) various state legislatures and have gotten various cities and others outlawed from being able to provide it in the first place. (Though usually the second place as one or more cities in the state had already started one, or were in the process of it.)
Actually the internet functions more like a utility, and since it is a communications method, it's completely appropriate the FCC regulates it. If the companies hadn't violated the spirit of net neutrality, they wouldn't have instituted actual rules known as net neutrality.
Killing net neutrality to "restore freedom" is like killing the constitution to "restore freedom". That's the exact opposite of what killing it does.
Of course, you're just an anonymous coward troll, and probably a paid one at that.
Certain companies were essentially blackmailing other companies to let them have their bandwidth back. Certain companies were also killing and cutting the bandwidth on other traffic that their customers were using., despite the customers having paid for a certain level of bandwidth.
There are more details and more incidents, but that's more than enough info to get the idea. They were doing exactly what net neutrality stops.
EULAs are questionable and I don't think they've gone all the way through a good case yet, but that's besides the point. The courts have already nailed several cheaters for violating copyright by injecting code into the game in memory to alter it (to cheat). Wanna guess what the cheat the kid was showing does? That's right, it injects code. So with several cases as precedent for that exact thing, yeah he's screwed.
Well there the issue that he disputed it, so he's already saying he will do it again. And his mom chimed in backing him up, so they can't expect her to do her parental duty and prevent him from doing something he's not supposed to be doing that illegal act he recorded in the first place on a game he's not supposed to be playing because he's too young.
I knew about this the other day from reporting that's in the US. The copyright part is about the cheat, it's using code injection, something the courts have already nailed people for. The kid has very little chance of winning as there is precedence, and it's against him.
It's true I hate the cheaters, but I also don't think altering anything in memory of your own computer is a copyright violation, but the courts have declared that it is, so it's kind of not a fair use since it involves breaking the law as it is currently interpreted.
The issue in this case isn't that he was showing video of the game, rather he was showing how to use a particular cheat tool, which he also specified how to obtain, to inject code into the live game to cheat. The violation is the code injection. Of course the company doesn't like people cheating or encouraging others to cheat either, as that messes things up for everyone. As I recall, several cases have already been won on copyright infringement against code injection cheats already. The kid was stupid, cocky, and the company was legally required to go to court or drop it completely, something that would hurt their ability to deal with others doing this kind of thing. As to him being a kid, my understanding is they weren't able to find that out until they fired off the lawsuit.
Then his mom decided to triple down on the kids double down, and shot her mouth off at the company in her letter. The response that would have made this entire thing go away would have been, "those videos will be removed and not uploaded again, and as he's too young to play the game, he won't be allowed to.". But no, she's too stupid or arrogant to figure that out. (Yes, there was a posting of the letter.)
I don't like companies sueing people, or taking down let's play videos or other fair use, but the courts have already said that code injection without permission isn't legal. The kid is screwed. But don't feel bad, he's a cheater that's been recruiting more cheaters, and his mouth wrote a check his ass can't cash, and his mom cosigned it..
My main mindgame on flights is when we takeoff and are climbing, look out the window at the wing, and act like someone who's completely awestruck and innocent and loudly proclaim, "WoW! Look at those wings move! It's almost like they're flapping!" Lot's of other people will look, see the perfectly normal movement of the wings, turn pale as a ghost, and slam the window shade! I know, I can be evil that way.
Yes, and that includes over reactions by ignorant and paranoid S.O.B.s like them.
Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't work in the first place with all the electronic noise their systems emit. They are shielded, and don't care about that frequency, which is why wifi is allowed on the planes.
It will have some means of replication, and it's likely it will function like DNA, or even be DNA, but that doesn't mean it will use the same letters/bases. Our DNA uses AGCT While RNA uses AGCU RNA is very similar to DNA and can do the same functions. Apparently some of the processes in our body have things switched between DNA & RNA. There can be other bases being used, which would be different letters. We've even synthesized some, and they seemed to have worked and were replicated along with the rest of the DNA successfully. We don't know what they do yet, but that's not a surprise at all. It's very reasonable that an alien genetics might have different bases/letters in it's DNA, in which case that would make it almost guaranteed it's not from earth.
Of course, there's also the Panspermia idea, in which case alien microbes from space could be exactly the same as a microbe on Earth, because it originally came from space, and might even be the first life on this planet. But to give that any real credence, we'd have to find it someplace a lot further away than low earth orbit. After all, if it matches something on Earth, how can we honestly say it didn't come from Earth?
It's called Panspermia, if it really is non-terrestrial, but odds are very high that it's terrestrial. Despite sterilization we have found bacterial colonies many times on our space hardware, and they've always been from Earth. Not only does it only take a single bacteria to survive and reach that location, as the article mentioned, there are things that can loft microorganisms to insane altitudes. I have doubts they can go as high as the space station, but there are rockets they can hitch a ride on, and again, it only takes one to start a colony. Don't forget that "just because it wasn't there before" only means that it was undetected for some reason, maybe because it was too small. And also, even if they don't have a match to a known terrestrial DNA sequence, still doesn't mean it's alien. It could just be that their database isn't complete. Actually we know the database of microbial DNA is not complete, so that's a given. Now if it doesn't match anything from Earth, and it's not close enough to be related to any known microbe, and an analysis of it's DNA doesn't show any real matches of any terrestrial DNA sequences at all, then it might be alien. (There are lots of shared sequences among all life on Earth, since they all share common ancestors, it's just some are more closely related than others.) If it's DNA uses something other than AGCT or AGCU, then it's almost guaranteed it's non-terrestrial/alien.
The US incarcerates more people than North Korea, and our entire prison system is severely screwed up, but you can bet that North Korea murders/kills/executes more people, even if they don't brag about it.
Make a sharp turn, that'll lose the sucker pretty easy. Or if he's right behind you, hit the brakes. That thing doesn't have the redirectable thrust, or control surfaces similar to any effective aircraft, and it absolutely doesn't have enough traction to use that. Though it is rather unstable and has to use a lot of it's thrust to keep from flipping over and killing the pilot. It's a joke, not a modern starwars speeder bike.
It's definitely NOT to fight crime or perform normal police activities. The only thing this is good for is to let some of them think that nobody will notice their small dicks.
You haven't been paying attention to the crazy new flying inventions people have been messing around with, including various versions of flycycles. Of course, with so little out there type research being done and publicized by corporations these days, we just hear about the lone inventors and small shops. Besides, the US pretty much did 90% of the basic development of that kind of vehicle back in the 50s & 60s. It's just not practical. (Cool doesn't win wars or transport people safely.)
Slashdot Mirror
Orwellian? Oh come on, it's not that bad...
:(
Not yet at least
Have you ever heard of a Free Market? I don't mean the buzzword political idiots throw around, but the actual economic ideal of Free Market.
Essentially it's an economic utopia where anyone can enter any product/service market and compete.
Like all utopias, it never has existed, and probably never will.
Look at the costs to enter into such a business, and then look at the regulations that prevent you from doing so in many places. Those are barriers to entry that prevent most of us from ever doing such a thing. We do NOT have a Free Market, we have something else, but I'm not sure which is the right economist term for it.
So just saying "go start your own business" or "go do it yourself" isn't feasible in this, and most other circumstances we might want to.
I know they covered all this stuff back in my high school days. Have they really fallen that far in education quality now?
Not to mention certain companies have lobbied (bought off) various state legislatures and have gotten various cities and others outlawed from being able to provide it in the first place. (Though usually the second place as one or more cities in the state had already started one, or were in the process of it.)
Doesn't work that way.
Actually the internet functions more like a utility, and since it is a communications method, it's completely appropriate the FCC regulates it.
If the companies hadn't violated the spirit of net neutrality, they wouldn't have instituted actual rules known as net neutrality.
Killing net neutrality to "restore freedom" is like killing the constitution to "restore freedom". That's the exact opposite of what killing it does.
Of course, you're just an anonymous coward troll, and probably a paid one at that.
Certain companies were essentially blackmailing other companies to let them have their bandwidth back.
Certain companies were also killing and cutting the bandwidth on other traffic that their customers were using., despite the customers having paid for a certain level of bandwidth.
There are more details and more incidents, but that's more than enough info to get the idea. They were doing exactly what net neutrality stops.
He was a Jew from the middle east. Haven't you ever read the bible, even the kiddie version?
The issue isn't the license, it's the copyright violation from the use of the cheat tool.
EULAs are questionable and I don't think they've gone all the way through a good case yet, but that's besides the point.
The courts have already nailed several cheaters for violating copyright by injecting code into the game in memory to alter it (to cheat). Wanna guess what the cheat the kid was showing does? That's right, it injects code. So with several cases as precedent for that exact thing, yeah he's screwed.
Well there the issue that he disputed it, so he's already saying he will do it again. And his mom chimed in backing him up, so they can't expect her to do her parental duty and prevent him from doing something he's not supposed to be doing that illegal act he recorded in the first place on a game he's not supposed to be playing because he's too young.
I knew about this the other day from reporting that's in the US.
The copyright part is about the cheat, it's using code injection, something the courts have already nailed people for. The kid has very little chance of winning as there is precedence, and it's against him.
It's true I hate the cheaters, but I also don't think altering anything in memory of your own computer is a copyright violation, but the courts have declared that it is, so it's kind of not a fair use since it involves breaking the law as it is currently interpreted.
(ianal)
The issue in this case isn't that he was showing video of the game, rather he was showing how to use a particular cheat tool, which he also specified how to obtain, to inject code into the live game to cheat. The violation is the code injection. Of course the company doesn't like people cheating or encouraging others to cheat either, as that messes things up for everyone.
As I recall, several cases have already been won on copyright infringement against code injection cheats already.
The kid was stupid, cocky, and the company was legally required to go to court or drop it completely, something that would hurt their ability to deal with others doing this kind of thing. As to him being a kid, my understanding is they weren't able to find that out until they fired off the lawsuit.
Then his mom decided to triple down on the kids double down, and shot her mouth off at the company in her letter.
The response that would have made this entire thing go away would have been, "those videos will be removed and not uploaded again, and as he's too young to play the game, he won't be allowed to.". But no, she's too stupid or arrogant to figure that out. (Yes, there was a posting of the letter.)
I don't like companies sueing people, or taking down let's play videos or other fair use, but the courts have already said that code injection without permission isn't legal. The kid is screwed. But don't feel bad, he's a cheater that's been recruiting more cheaters, and his mouth wrote a check his ass can't cash, and his mom cosigned it..
That would be hilarious!
My main mindgame on flights is when we takeoff and are climbing, look out the window at the wing, and act like someone who's completely awestruck and innocent and loudly proclaim, "WoW! Look at those wings move! It's almost like they're flapping!"
Lot's of other people will look, see the perfectly normal movement of the wings, turn pale as a ghost, and slam the window shade!
I know, I can be evil that way.
Yes, and that includes over reactions by ignorant and paranoid S.O.B.s like them.
Every city I've been in since wifi became common there are several networks named "FBI surveillance van". It's a childish joke, and nobody has ever been arrested for impersonating a federal officer because of it. And before anyone says the obvious joke, no, they are not the FBI either. (Out of curiosity as to who set up some of those I've tracked them down, most are university students.)
If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't work in the first place with all the electronic noise their systems emit. They are shielded, and don't care about that frequency, which is why wifi is allowed on the planes.
Someone beat you to an Andromeda Strain comment a long time ago on this thread.
And of course since bacteria have an asexual reproduction method, all it ever takes is one...
It will have some means of replication, and it's likely it will function like DNA, or even be DNA, but that doesn't mean it will use the same letters/bases.
Our DNA uses AGCT
While RNA uses AGCU
RNA is very similar to DNA and can do the same functions. Apparently some of the processes in our body have things switched between DNA & RNA.
There can be other bases being used, which would be different letters. We've even synthesized some, and they seemed to have worked and were replicated along with the rest of the DNA successfully. We don't know what they do yet, but that's not a surprise at all.
It's very reasonable that an alien genetics might have different bases/letters in it's DNA, in which case that would make it almost guaranteed it's not from earth.
Of course, there's also the Panspermia idea, in which case alien microbes from space could be exactly the same as a microbe on Earth, because it originally came from space, and might even be the first life on this planet. But to give that any real credence, we'd have to find it someplace a lot further away than low earth orbit. After all, if it matches something on Earth, how can we honestly say it didn't come from Earth?
It's called Panspermia, if it really is non-terrestrial, but odds are very high that it's terrestrial.
Despite sterilization we have found bacterial colonies many times on our space hardware, and they've always been from Earth.
Not only does it only take a single bacteria to survive and reach that location, as the article mentioned, there are things that can loft microorganisms to insane altitudes. I have doubts they can go as high as the space station, but there are rockets they can hitch a ride on, and again, it only takes one to start a colony.
Don't forget that "just because it wasn't there before" only means that it was undetected for some reason, maybe because it was too small.
And also, even if they don't have a match to a known terrestrial DNA sequence, still doesn't mean it's alien. It could just be that their database isn't complete. Actually we know the database of microbial DNA is not complete, so that's a given.
Now if it doesn't match anything from Earth, and it's not close enough to be related to any known microbe, and an analysis of it's DNA doesn't show any real matches of any terrestrial DNA sequences at all, then it might be alien. (There are lots of shared sequences among all life on Earth, since they all share common ancestors, it's just some are more closely related than others.)
If it's DNA uses something other than AGCT or AGCU, then it's almost guaranteed it's non-terrestrial/alien.
The US incarcerates more people than North Korea, and our entire prison system is severely screwed up, but you can bet that North Korea murders/kills/executes more people, even if they don't brag about it.
Off Topic
Make a sharp turn, that'll lose the sucker pretty easy. Or if he's right behind you, hit the brakes. That thing doesn't have the redirectable thrust, or control surfaces similar to any effective aircraft, and it absolutely doesn't have enough traction to use that. Though it is rather unstable and has to use a lot of it's thrust to keep from flipping over and killing the pilot. It's a joke, not a modern starwars speeder bike.
It's definitely NOT to fight crime or perform normal police activities.
The only thing this is good for is to let some of them think that nobody will notice their small dicks.
Too close to the ground for it to be anything other than unwanted weight
You haven't been paying attention to the crazy new flying inventions people have been messing around with, including various versions of flycycles.
Of course, with so little out there type research being done and publicized by corporations these days, we just hear about the lone inventors and small shops.
Besides, the US pretty much did 90% of the basic development of that kind of vehicle back in the 50s & 60s. It's just not practical. (Cool doesn't win wars or transport people safely.)