An even bigger reason is because all the ISPs they're trying to regulate only managed to get so powerful because the government gave them public money and allowed them to put wires up all over the place ignoring property rights, thus effectively setting them up as monopolies. Of course companies that use public funds and get special privileges from the government should be regulated.
A good thing, I say. Poverty will be eradicated, Wall Street will disappear into uselessness and everyone will have 16 hours a day of time to do whatever they want. People will want to create new stuff, even lacking any normal incentive, simply out of boredom.
The most we've dug down on Earth is 12.2 kilometers. It would be easier on the moon since there's not as much gravity and the moon is much more inert but drilling down 1738 kilometers is hard.
Our society has already accepted that video is a legitimate form of artistic expression, and there are movies that are considered high art. Youtube is just a distribution medium, so if video can be high art so can Youtube video.
What if it's actually the Republicans making a scheme to make us think that it's the Democrats trying to make us think it's the Republicans trying to make us think it's the Democrat candidate?
Consider two giant bouncyballs in space, with the same inertial mass but where ball A has 4 times the gravitational mass of ball B. They start off some distance apart from each other, with velocity 0. As they attract each other, B will be accelerating 4 times faster than A since A has 4 times the gravity, and at one point they will meet. When they meet, A will have velocity -1 and B velocity +4. When they bounce off of each other, A will, naturally, have velocity +4 and B velocity -1. Now, B is still accelerating (or rather, decelerating) toward A 4 times faster than A is toward B, and when their relative velocity reaches 0, A will have velocity +3 and B will have velocity +3. Thus, each bounce accelerates the entire system by +3 with ZERO energy input, thus violating conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
This is why any universe with a concept of conservation of energy and/or momentum must have the property inertial mass = gravitational mass. Now, if we can somehow break this rule with energy input, those of us interested in interstellar travel might have a completely new type of engine on our hands.
do you wish to assert that your dying young is not going to have some sort of social cost I have to pick up?
I question the dimbulb argument. I have a very nice IQ. No doubt I am a dimbulb here and there anyway. But tobacco has often been a big issue in my life. And I come out of an era where tobacco company out and out lies are well established. I wonder how I should process your remarks.
Lastly your argument would also support giving out smack on the street corner. Somehow, I suspect that you would find making that argument inconvenient.
Well, good, because I have absolutely zero problems with making the argument that giving out smack should be legal.
First of all, sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol, etc are meant to cover the costs of providing medical care to their users. That covers the social costs of those substances. Secondly, the parent accepted that tobacco companies do lie and deceive their customers, he just stated that they're not deceiving him, since he's an informed consumer and understands that tobacco consumption is a high-risk activity. He sees that tobacco has value to him (relieving stress, entertainment, social status, whatever) and to him the value outweighs the health cost. Antivirus software, however, has very little or no value, therefore its business relies on tricking dimbulbs more than the tobacco business does.
Linux developers have issued a critical update for the open-source OS after researchers uncovered a vulnerability in its kernel that puts most versions built in the past eight years at risk of complete takeover.
Actually, 74% of Linux was written by people with a profit motive. It's not a volunteer effort, it's the realization that there are reasons for writing software that do not involve directly making money from it.
"Any idea that's 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,"
Any idea no matter where/when/who it comes from will certainly offend someone or other.
These warnings were probably a reactionary measure taken after angry parents called in asking why they publish Huckleberry Finn when it has so many instances of the N word in it. A disclaimer isn't going to satisfy these people. We, as a society, should instead simply buckle down and accept that some people say/said things we don't like.
Nah, Acrobat is worse. Flash is insecure but it has to be very complex because of all the things you can do with it, so the insecurity is partially excusable. Acrobat, however, took the genius step of implementing javascript in a document format, something which 99.999% of PDFs don't need, but which 99.999% of malicious PDFs rely on. PDF should be a secure format, like.png and.txt are, but they just had to give documents the ability to run scripts on your machine.
You kinda need a link or some kind of address for your useful and relevant advertising to actually reach the people that need your product. Maybe consider putting one in next time?
Why do people buy a 42 inch TV instead of a 28 inch TV? The same argument applies to going to a movie theater and watching through a 1000 inch TV. That's one reason a pirate might pay to watch a movie at a theater. As for people buying on DVD, for some people going to the store, buying a season of (insert show here) and going back takes only 30 minutes, which is more convenient than downloading 7-15 gigs of video through a 5KB/sec dialup connection (my calculations put that at 2-5 weeks non-stop). And don't think that second issue will go away as technology improves - once we get bored with increasing resolution to beyond that of the human eye we'll start distributing 3D movies where viewers can pick their own point of view, and one of those will take up around 100 GB.
Right there we have two commercial markets that people will buy from even if the pirate networks become 100% legal.
Regulating commercial use specifically allows for certain reasonable compromises - for example, allowing movie producers to maintain their temporary monopoly in movie theaters and their temporary monopoly in physical media (ie. CDs) sales while allowing people to share the movies on the internet.
MPG are a better indicator of what's going on, since it doesn't lose sensitivity so quickly. One has to understand that as cars get more efficient, they are asymptotically approaching some limit. A linear scale doesn't work, unless you start piling up digits after the decimal.
That's the whole point here. Chasing infinity seems like a noble goal, but you're really only skimming off milliliters. The fact is that upgrading a 9 MPG car to 10 MPG saves more fuel than upgrading a 100 MPG car to 1000 MPG (the first one goes from 0.111 gallons per mile to 0.100, the second one 0.010 to 0.001). People don't think "I have 20 gallons, how far can I go", they think "I need to go 200 miles, how much do I need / will it cost to get there". Using a linear scale of consumption not only is more helpful to people trying to figure out how much fuel they need, since multiplication is easier than division, but also it shows where a sane environmental policy should be looking to make the greatest benefit it can: at the cars with very high fuel consumption.
And how often do you casually repeat insightful/witty statements made by other people in conversation without bothering to give a citation? Everyone does it, sometimes without even realizing it.
Slashdot Mirror
An even bigger reason is because all the ISPs they're trying to regulate only managed to get so powerful because the government gave them public money and allowed them to put wires up all over the place ignoring property rights, thus effectively setting them up as monopolies. Of course companies that use public funds and get special privileges from the government should be regulated.
A good thing, I say. Poverty will be eradicated, Wall Street will disappear into uselessness and everyone will have 16 hours a day of time to do whatever they want. People will want to create new stuff, even lacking any normal incentive, simply out of boredom.
So, something like this?
The most we've dug down on Earth is 12.2 kilometers. It would be easier on the moon since there's not as much gravity and the moon is much more inert but drilling down 1738 kilometers is hard.
Exactly, only people who are doing something wrong have something to hide.
Our society has already accepted that video is a legitimate form of artistic expression, and there are movies that are considered high art. Youtube is just a distribution medium, so if video can be high art so can Youtube video.
What if it's actually the Republicans making a scheme to make us think that it's the Democrats trying to make us think it's the Republicans trying to make us think it's the Democrat candidate?
Mine is still a nearly 100% Mac shop, when I'm inside even at peak time Linux temporarily becomes more popular than Windows.
You do realize that you can, even before this change, use Starbucks's wifi without ever buying a single thing from them?
Also, try tea. It's cheaper.
They're not just watching, they're distributing it too. Sorry, but putting those bits online is capital treason against the internet.
Consider two giant bouncyballs in space, with the same inertial mass but where ball A has 4 times the gravitational mass of ball B. They start off some distance apart from each other, with velocity 0. As they attract each other, B will be accelerating 4 times faster than A since A has 4 times the gravity, and at one point they will meet. When they meet, A will have velocity -1 and B velocity +4. When they bounce off of each other, A will, naturally, have velocity +4 and B velocity -1. Now, B is still accelerating (or rather, decelerating) toward A 4 times faster than A is toward B, and when their relative velocity reaches 0, A will have velocity +3 and B will have velocity +3. Thus, each bounce accelerates the entire system by +3 with ZERO energy input, thus violating conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
This is why any universe with a concept of conservation of energy and/or momentum must have the property inertial mass = gravitational mass. Now, if we can somehow break this rule with energy input, those of us interested in interstellar travel might have a completely new type of engine on our hands.
You could care less about people throwing their opinions around just because they have them, and you really should.
do you wish to assert that your dying young is not going to have some sort of social cost I have to pick up?
I question the dimbulb argument. I have a very nice IQ. No doubt I am a dimbulb here and there anyway. But tobacco has often been a big issue in my life. And I come out of an era where tobacco company out and out lies are well established. I wonder how I should process your remarks.
Lastly your argument would also support giving out smack on the street corner. Somehow, I suspect that you would find making that argument inconvenient.
Well, good, because I have absolutely zero problems with making the argument that giving out smack should be legal.
First of all, sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol, etc are meant to cover the costs of providing medical care to their users. That covers the social costs of those substances. Secondly, the parent accepted that tobacco companies do lie and deceive their customers, he just stated that they're not deceiving him, since he's an informed consumer and understands that tobacco consumption is a high-risk activity. He sees that tobacco has value to him (relieving stress, entertainment, social status, whatever) and to him the value outweighs the health cost. Antivirus software, however, has very little or no value, therefore its business relies on tricking dimbulbs more than the tobacco business does.
Bug exposes eight years of Linux kernel
Linux developers have issued a critical update for the open-source OS after researchers uncovered a vulnerability in its kernel that puts most versions built in the past eight years at risk of complete takeover.
Well, if you want to play that game...
High school kids can barely write legibly
Can't really type illegibly, can you?
can not spell
Spellcheck.
nor understand basic math
Calculator.
These are the issues the school should be focusing on.
And they are focusing on those issues. Just not in the way they should be.
Actually, 74% of Linux was written by people with a profit motive. It's not a volunteer effort, it's the realization that there are reasons for writing software that do not involve directly making money from it.
From TFA:
"Any idea that's 100 years old will probably offend someone or other,"
Any idea no matter where/when/who it comes from will certainly offend someone or other.
These warnings were probably a reactionary measure taken after angry parents called in asking why they publish Huckleberry Finn when it has so many instances of the N word in it. A disclaimer isn't going to satisfy these people. We, as a society, should instead simply buckle down and accept that some people say/said things we don't like.
Nah, Acrobat is worse. Flash is insecure but it has to be very complex because of all the things you can do with it, so the insecurity is partially excusable. Acrobat, however, took the genius step of implementing javascript in a document format, something which 99.999% of PDFs don't need, but which 99.999% of malicious PDFs rely on. PDF should be a secure format, like .png and .txt are, but they just had to give documents the ability to run scripts on your machine.
You kinda need a link or some kind of address for your useful and relevant advertising to actually reach the people that need your product. Maybe consider putting one in next time?
Why do people buy a 42 inch TV instead of a 28 inch TV? The same argument applies to going to a movie theater and watching through a 1000 inch TV. That's one reason a pirate might pay to watch a movie at a theater. As for people buying on DVD, for some people going to the store, buying a season of (insert show here) and going back takes only 30 minutes, which is more convenient than downloading 7-15 gigs of video through a 5KB/sec dialup connection (my calculations put that at 2-5 weeks non-stop). And don't think that second issue will go away as technology improves - once we get bored with increasing resolution to beyond that of the human eye we'll start distributing 3D movies where viewers can pick their own point of view, and one of those will take up around 100 GB.
Right there we have two commercial markets that people will buy from even if the pirate networks become 100% legal.
And there are 365472 others who feel the same way.
Regulating commercial use specifically allows for certain reasonable compromises - for example, allowing movie producers to maintain their temporary monopoly in movie theaters and their temporary monopoly in physical media (ie. CDs) sales while allowing people to share the movies on the internet.
MPG are a better indicator of what's going on, since it doesn't lose sensitivity so quickly. One has to understand that as cars get more efficient, they are asymptotically approaching some limit. A linear scale doesn't work, unless you start piling up digits after the decimal.
That's the whole point here. Chasing infinity seems like a noble goal, but you're really only skimming off milliliters. The fact is that upgrading a 9 MPG car to 10 MPG saves more fuel than upgrading a 100 MPG car to 1000 MPG (the first one goes from 0.111 gallons per mile to 0.100, the second one 0.010 to 0.001). People don't think "I have 20 gallons, how far can I go", they think "I need to go 200 miles, how much do I need / will it cost to get there". Using a linear scale of consumption not only is more helpful to people trying to figure out how much fuel they need, since multiplication is easier than division, but also it shows where a sane environmental policy should be looking to make the greatest benefit it can: at the cars with very high fuel consumption.
80 mph. You just have to take lots of detours to increase the remaining distance.
And how often do you casually repeat insightful/witty statements made by other people in conversation without bothering to give a citation? Everyone does it, sometimes without even realizing it.