Explain how you come to that conclusion.... why do you think that the far side of the moon would be any harder to spy on than the near side? What about the far side of the moon makes it any more difficult for satellites to fly over?
Or do you somehow think that we'd ordinarily try and monitor things on the lunar surface from the ground here on earth using optical telescopes or something?
Are you paid for your time that you say you are available and waiting for someone to need a ride? What about time spent travelling to the pick up point?
If there were a reason to militarize space, you can bet the USA as the world's arms dealer would've done it already. The reason there's no military installation in space is that it makes no tactical sense. It makes your weapons more visible than they are on the ground, and it takes a hell of a lot longer for the weapon to hit the Earth target if you launch it from the moon than if you launch an ICBM from your home country.
This is only true if you are using missiles for weapons.
What about using a super-high-powered laser? Of course, that means that any any one time, only half of the planet is actually within firing range, but the time to hit any target that is visible at the moment would still be only about a second or so. The down side is that it might take up to 12 hours for a would-be target that has just swung out of view to swing back in.
By about the time an electric car actually pays for itself in terms of gasoline saved, it's nearly time to replace the battery. which throws you back about another year again before you start to see savings.
I don't deny that the savings is there, and in the long run its clearly going to be cheaper, but the amount of time it will take in practice to see any savings, coupled with the fact that in the interim, you are still having to shell out more money to begin with, which may create an increased financial burden potentially negating its very possibility before you even buy the car, electric cars are simply not yet an economically viable alternative for many people, even if their day-to-day commute would otherwise be entirely amenable to it.
If I'm not mistaken, Chromium's javascript uses v8, while Edge's uses Chakracore. My experience with both is that the latter is vastly technically superior, as well as easier to embed into an extensible system with less boilerplate code. While v8's templated approach to its API does arguably make it easier to use javascript types directly from C++ than Chakracore, it also makes v8's API far more complicated. It is less work to write a C++ wrapper around Chakracore's simple C api than it is to understand v8.
The Nissan Leaf may be $30K while the average price for a new car is $33K, but that's only because the average new car is not a compact, which is the classification that the Leaf falls in. A brand new compact vehicle can be purchased for $20K or sometimes even less.
A Starbucks representative told NBC News that the viewing of 'egregious content' over its stores' Wi-Fi has always violated its policy, but the company now has a way to stop it
Color me skeptical... if people own the hardware the connects to their wifi, how do they actually stop it?
If it's difficult enough to stop kids from accessing porn on a home computer without parents using explicit whitelists, I fail to see how Starbucks can do this when they don't even control the connecting hardware.
Let me stress this: copyright exists to enrich the public domain.
Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me.
If it fails at that, it has no reason whatsoever to exist, and must be abolished.
This is, I think, throwing the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater. While the implementation of copyright today is atrocious, I do not think it is so bad that it it merits the abolishment of copyright entirely. Certainly it would be preferable for copyright to be dialed back to durations that are more in line with the the concept of, what you say, having the concept of being a "temporary monopoly". Technically speaking, however, even the absurd duration that is on copyright today is, in fact, still temporary.
And to that end, I believe that absolishing copyright entirely would actually cause more problems than it would actually solve. Abolishing copyright would, I think, result would be a society so entirely filled with self-censorship that only the very rich or elite would ever tend to get any access to newly created works of any appreciable quality. To an extent, sufficiently skilled (and altruistic) people outside of this group might be able to effectively obtain copies some of these works as well and distribute them publicly if they so chose, but you can bet that the groups that controlled access to the content would be doing everything in their power to keep that from happening, and would certainly put into effect whatever measures were possible to minimize its frequency, even if they could not actually entirely eliminate it. The result would be a vastly reduced amount of works with any quality, and public domain would become effectively synonymous with "useless tripe". In general, the only things that most people would ever openly publish are the things that they had no interest in ever claiming authorship of in the first place. Over time, rather than benefiting society as public domain should, the availability of such works that nobody had any interest in claiming originality for in the first place would tend to result in the dumbing down of society - the very opposite of progress and enrichment.
While you'll get no argument from me that our current (and for the forseeable future) implementation of copyright is abhorrent, I believe that its abolishment would be orders of magnitude worse in terms of its impact on public domain and how it can enrich society.
Copyright is an artificial extension of the natural right of exclusivity of control over who could copy a work they had created if the creator never allowed anyone to access the work in the first place. In theory, copyright exists to give people incentive to publish and share their works with other people while still enjoying a limited form of that original exclusivity insomuch as it can be enforced by law.
Without copyright, it's pretty much a given that people will resort to self-censorship as a means of protecting their control over their works, and it will, in general, be more difficult to acquire such works in a fashion that will be readily consumable. You might be able to freely copy any work you could get your hands on in the absence of copyright, but I dare say it would generally be harder to get ones hands on works that had any appreciable quality... the best works would generally be effectively held under lock and key and only given to specially selected people instead of the public. If you think the signal to noise ratio on the internet is bad now because of all the crap on it drowning out any of the good stuff, try and imagine it being a hundred times or so worse.
Nothing... the pervasiveness of the big company will be such that web searches will not tend to find the free versions of the software, people will generally not even be aware that it was originally free.
Regardless, it's plagiarism at any level, and while it is legal to plagiairize public domain content, it is not considered remotely ethical.
You are out of touch with reality. In this day and age, if it exists on the internet and the author wants it found, then it will be found.
I'm suggesting that is only possible *because* the little guy has the arm of copyright to keep larger companies from misappropriating what they create. If people with the same name as a suspected terrorist can end up on a no-fly list despite not having any affliation with the agencies for which such a prohibition was made, you can be sure that a larger company's effective takeover of some smaller company's codebase that they do not wish to compensate would easily drown out any efforts made by the smaller entity.
Let's imagine copyright didn't exist. Let's say that some relatively unknown person tries to create a work they want to be freely available in the manner of the GPL, and they put it on the internet. Then, some bigger entity that is more widely known comes across it and appropriates it, but they do not provide the source code, which would have otherwise been required under something like the GPL. Because of how widely known the larger agency is, the smaller might not necessarily be easily found when trying to find the source code, and that's even *if* somebody bothers to look, and the creator's intent of wanting to keep the work's source code freely available is effectively destroyed, while if the larger entity had not appropriated the source code for their own purposes, trying to find it would not be as hard because there wouldn't be as much "noise" over the closed source version interfering with finding the source code.
Even the BSD license, which does not require that you provide source code, still requires that you acknowledge the original license, which in turn would effectively keep awareness of the original work from being lost because of the pervasiveness of someone's distribution of it. Without copyright, there would no obligation on anyone's part to acknowlege even this. Does it follow that the unchecked plagiarism which would result is ethical?
.... when the ads are inserted at reasonable locations for the content.
Youtube inserts commercials right in the middle of a person talking and it always pisses me the hell off... The commercials are short, but it's still effing annoying.
If they can't find a decent place to put their commercials, and they insist on monetizing it, then they should reject the video, and ask the uploader to insert blackouts where commercials can be put before reuploading it before it will be allowed to remain up.
Even worse, that list is probably public record and now websites will list you as a "flagged individual likely to commit a crime" and their SEO will make sure your name is destroyed unless you pay them a hefty ransom where they will just move you to another website and demand another ransom...
Where did I suggest that information should be public record? It should no more be public record than a person's medical records.
One would think, if that were the case, that a person who has been audited is more likely to be audited repeatedly. After all, they are on a government list.
Most people that I know have been audited at least once in their lives... only very rarely does it happen more often.
I could see an argument for a mandatory counselling session for a person who has raised flags of being a potential danger to others insomuch as a person is not treated as if they are already guilty (or even inevitably guilty) of criminal behavior, but more along the lines of something like a routine tax audit where after a more thorough analysis if there aren't any actual problems that end up needing to be addressed, the entire process presents only at most a very modest inconvenience, and if it concludes normally, you are unlikely to be assessed again.
I think that such would only be applicable of a customer were expecting compensation for the changing of the terms of the original contract, for example, compensation equivalent to the difference between their new rates and old for the remaining duration of the contract. Which, as I had already suggested, they probably wouldn't be able to get.
IANAL, but I've read a bit about this sort of thing, and it's my understanding that since the customer would not have had any practical means of anticipating that the terms of the contract would change, Comcast would not be able to enforce their own ends of the termination of contract agreement either (ie, collection of any kind of early termination fees). The customer could, basically, just walk away from this.
If Comcast tries to send any sort of early termination fee bill to collections, the collection agency will have no choice but to side the the customer who will have presumably paid in full for the services that they actually received, as well as returned any equipment that they did not actually own.
And honestly, if you think having a single cable bill sent to collections will irreparably damage your credit rating, especially one that will be discharged when the collection agency learns that the fee is not actually legally enforceable in the first place because of unwarranted change of contract terms, then it's already in bad enough shape as it is.
Of course, if you go down this road, don't ever expect to be able to deal with Comcast again... decisions have their consequences, and it is not entirely unlikely that they may refuse to offer any further service to you, indefinitely.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey found that Comcast advertised a $99 lock-in rate but "did not adequately disclose equipment costs and mandatory monthly fees" that would add to monthly bills and "failed to adequately disclose that the fees could increase while the customer was locked into the long-term contract."
While there may not be anything people can do about keeping their original contract prices, that failure to disclose substantially weakens their ability to hold people to remaining on that contract, and it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't able to actually enforce any early termination fees they might have decided should otherwise apply, particularly since the customer would have had no practical way to anticipate in advance that these changes were about to occur.
I mean, it just needlessly increases the cost of a good without giving anyone an incentive to move manufacturing into the USA because it's less expensive to just pay the tax than build entirely new domestic infrastructure that would in the long run, cost more anyways because of the costs of recovering those infrastructure costs.
Of course, the problem with all of this is that long before you've applied any tax high enough to create such an incentive, you will have already created another incentive for a black market that will present its own problems.
Then these people who run the bots will only have the extremely stupid to make a profit from who will eventually run out of money.
Uh... no. That's not how it works at all.
Unless by "eventually" you mean it in the same sense that eventually our sun will run out fuel, or that even the universe itself will not be around forever.
They finally don't have to worry about sniper software always catching up to their interface changes... they can just file charges against the distributor.
You may be temporarily less productive than you might have been at your last job, but no more so than anyone else would be that is starting a new job in a new place with different people.
But that doesn't make you a worse programmer, it makes you better. You certainly don't become any *less* competent at what you can do, but even being great at your last job doesn't automatically mean you will instantly know everything there is to know about someplace completely new. Learning new things takes time, and absolutely any remotely decent employer is going to know that and expect that your productivity may be below that of others in the company who have been there a while for the first few weeks.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain how you come to that conclusion.... why do you think that the far side of the moon would be any harder to spy on than the near side? What about the far side of the moon makes it any more difficult for satellites to fly over?
Or do you somehow think that we'd ordinarily try and monitor things on the lunar surface from the ground here on earth using optical telescopes or something?
Are you paid for your time that you say you are available and waiting for someone to need a ride? What about time spent travelling to the pick up point?
This is only true if you are using missiles for weapons.
What about using a super-high-powered laser? Of course, that means that any any one time, only half of the planet is actually within firing range, but the time to hit any target that is visible at the moment would still be only about a second or so. The down side is that it might take up to 12 hours for a would-be target that has just swung out of view to swing back in.
I'm pretty sure that the inside of the moon is pretty dark, actually.
Speaking of which, whatever became of that lunar cave they discovered from lunar orbit? Was any probe ever sent to explore it?
By about the time an electric car actually pays for itself in terms of gasoline saved, it's nearly time to replace the battery. which throws you back about another year again before you start to see savings.
I don't deny that the savings is there, and in the long run its clearly going to be cheaper, but the amount of time it will take in practice to see any savings, coupled with the fact that in the interim, you are still having to shell out more money to begin with, which may create an increased financial burden potentially negating its very possibility before you even buy the car, electric cars are simply not yet an economically viable alternative for many people, even if their day-to-day commute would otherwise be entirely amenable to it.
If I'm not mistaken, Chromium's javascript uses v8, while Edge's uses Chakracore. My experience with both is that the latter is vastly technically superior, as well as easier to embed into an extensible system with less boilerplate code. While v8's templated approach to its API does arguably make it easier to use javascript types directly from C++ than Chakracore, it also makes v8's API far more complicated. It is less work to write a C++ wrapper around Chakracore's simple C api than it is to understand v8.
The Nissan Leaf may be $30K while the average price for a new car is $33K, but that's only because the average new car is not a compact, which is the classification that the Leaf falls in. A brand new compact vehicle can be purchased for $20K or sometimes even less.
Color me skeptical... if people own the hardware the connects to their wifi, how do they actually stop it?
If it's difficult enough to stop kids from accessing porn on a home computer without parents using explicit whitelists, I fail to see how Starbucks can do this when they don't even control the connecting hardware.
Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me.
This is, I think, throwing the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater. While the implementation of copyright today is atrocious, I do not think it is so bad that it it merits the abolishment of copyright entirely. Certainly it would be preferable for copyright to be dialed back to durations that are more in line with the the concept of, what you say, having the concept of being a "temporary monopoly". Technically speaking, however, even the absurd duration that is on copyright today is, in fact, still temporary.
And to that end, I believe that absolishing copyright entirely would actually cause more problems than it would actually solve. Abolishing copyright would, I think, result would be a society so entirely filled with self-censorship that only the very rich or elite would ever tend to get any access to newly created works of any appreciable quality. To an extent, sufficiently skilled (and altruistic) people outside of this group might be able to effectively obtain copies some of these works as well and distribute them publicly if they so chose, but you can bet that the groups that controlled access to the content would be doing everything in their power to keep that from happening, and would certainly put into effect whatever measures were possible to minimize its frequency, even if they could not actually entirely eliminate it. The result would be a vastly reduced amount of works with any quality, and public domain would become effectively synonymous with "useless tripe". In general, the only things that most people would ever openly publish are the things that they had no interest in ever claiming authorship of in the first place. Over time, rather than benefiting society as public domain should, the availability of such works that nobody had any interest in claiming originality for in the first place would tend to result in the dumbing down of society - the very opposite of progress and enrichment.
While you'll get no argument from me that our current (and for the forseeable future) implementation of copyright is abhorrent, I believe that its abolishment would be orders of magnitude worse in terms of its impact on public domain and how it can enrich society.
Copyright is an artificial extension of the natural right of exclusivity of control over who could copy a work they had created if the creator never allowed anyone to access the work in the first place. In theory, copyright exists to give people incentive to publish and share their works with other people while still enjoying a limited form of that original exclusivity insomuch as it can be enforced by law.
Without copyright, it's pretty much a given that people will resort to self-censorship as a means of protecting their control over their works, and it will, in general, be more difficult to acquire such works in a fashion that will be readily consumable. You might be able to freely copy any work you could get your hands on in the absence of copyright, but I dare say it would generally be harder to get ones hands on works that had any appreciable quality... the best works would generally be effectively held under lock and key and only given to specially selected people instead of the public. If you think the signal to noise ratio on the internet is bad now because of all the crap on it drowning out any of the good stuff, try and imagine it being a hundred times or so worse.
Nothing... the pervasiveness of the big company will be such that web searches will not tend to find the free versions of the software, people will generally not even be aware that it was originally free.
Regardless, it's plagiarism at any level, and while it is legal to plagiairize public domain content, it is not considered remotely ethical.
I'm suggesting that is only possible *because* the little guy has the arm of copyright to keep larger companies from misappropriating what they create. If people with the same name as a suspected terrorist can end up on a no-fly list despite not having any affliation with the agencies for which such a prohibition was made, you can be sure that a larger company's effective takeover of some smaller company's codebase that they do not wish to compensate would easily drown out any efforts made by the smaller entity.
Legally? No reason at all. Ethically? That's another matter... Or do you think that there is nothing unethical about plagiarism?
So until a person has actually done something wrong, they shouldn't ever be audited either?
Not entirely...
Let's imagine copyright didn't exist. Let's say that some relatively unknown person tries to create a work they want to be freely available in the manner of the GPL, and they put it on the internet. Then, some bigger entity that is more widely known comes across it and appropriates it, but they do not provide the source code, which would have otherwise been required under something like the GPL. Because of how widely known the larger agency is, the smaller might not necessarily be easily found when trying to find the source code, and that's even *if* somebody bothers to look, and the creator's intent of wanting to keep the work's source code freely available is effectively destroyed, while if the larger entity had not appropriated the source code for their own purposes, trying to find it would not be as hard because there wouldn't be as much "noise" over the closed source version interfering with finding the source code.
Even the BSD license, which does not require that you provide source code, still requires that you acknowledge the original license, which in turn would effectively keep awareness of the original work from being lost because of the pervasiveness of someone's distribution of it. Without copyright, there would no obligation on anyone's part to acknowlege even this. Does it follow that the unchecked plagiarism which would result is ethical?
Youtube inserts commercials right in the middle of a person talking and it always pisses me the hell off... The commercials are short, but it's still effing annoying.
If they can't find a decent place to put their commercials, and they insist on monetizing it, then they should reject the video, and ask the uploader to insert blackouts where commercials can be put before reuploading it before it will be allowed to remain up.
Where did I suggest that information should be public record? It should no more be public record than a person's medical records.
One would think, if that were the case, that a person who has been audited is more likely to be audited repeatedly. After all, they are on a government list.
Most people that I know have been audited at least once in their lives... only very rarely does it happen more often.
I could see an argument for a mandatory counselling session for a person who has raised flags of being a potential danger to others insomuch as a person is not treated as if they are already guilty (or even inevitably guilty) of criminal behavior, but more along the lines of something like a routine tax audit where after a more thorough analysis if there aren't any actual problems that end up needing to be addressed, the entire process presents only at most a very modest inconvenience, and if it concludes normally, you are unlikely to be assessed again.
I think that such would only be applicable of a customer were expecting compensation for the changing of the terms of the original contract, for example, compensation equivalent to the difference between their new rates and old for the remaining duration of the contract. Which, as I had already suggested, they probably wouldn't be able to get.
IANAL, but I've read a bit about this sort of thing, and it's my understanding that since the customer would not have had any practical means of anticipating that the terms of the contract would change, Comcast would not be able to enforce their own ends of the termination of contract agreement either (ie, collection of any kind of early termination fees). The customer could, basically, just walk away from this.
If Comcast tries to send any sort of early termination fee bill to collections, the collection agency will have no choice but to side the the customer who will have presumably paid in full for the services that they actually received, as well as returned any equipment that they did not actually own.
And honestly, if you think having a single cable bill sent to collections will irreparably damage your credit rating, especially one that will be discharged when the collection agency learns that the fee is not actually legally enforceable in the first place because of unwarranted change of contract terms, then it's already in bad enough shape as it is.
Of course, if you go down this road, don't ever expect to be able to deal with Comcast again... decisions have their consequences, and it is not entirely unlikely that they may refuse to offer any further service to you, indefinitely.
While there may not be anything people can do about keeping their original contract prices, that failure to disclose substantially weakens their ability to hold people to remaining on that contract, and it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't able to actually enforce any early termination fees they might have decided should otherwise apply, particularly since the customer would have had no practical way to anticipate in advance that these changes were about to occur.
I mean, it just needlessly increases the cost of a good without giving anyone an incentive to move manufacturing into the USA because it's less expensive to just pay the tax than build entirely new domestic infrastructure that would in the long run, cost more anyways because of the costs of recovering those infrastructure costs.
Of course, the problem with all of this is that long before you've applied any tax high enough to create such an incentive, you will have already created another incentive for a black market that will present its own problems.
Uh... no. That's not how it works at all.
Unless by "eventually" you mean it in the same sense that eventually our sun will run out fuel, or that even the universe itself will not be around forever.
They finally don't have to worry about sniper software always catching up to their interface changes... they can just file charges against the distributor.
You may be temporarily less productive than you might have been at your last job, but no more so than anyone else would be that is starting a new job in a new place with different people.
But that doesn't make you a worse programmer, it makes you better. You certainly don't become any *less* competent at what you can do, but even being great at your last job doesn't automatically mean you will instantly know everything there is to know about someplace completely new. Learning new things takes time, and absolutely any remotely decent employer is going to know that and expect that your productivity may be below that of others in the company who have been there a while for the first few weeks.