I'll grant you the antimatter issue, but I still like my tongue-in-cheek jab at the GGP for saying that dark matter wouldn't be "seen" after falling into a black hole. It is "dark" after all, meaning it cannot be seen in the human sense of the word, so the difference between it being in a black hole and not being in a black hole is visibly none.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that it's possible that the actual act of falling into a black hole is the only thing that would ever make dark matter visible. So it would never be seen before, or after, but possibly could be seen *during* its descent into the singularity.
That would be too expensive. Better to dig a hole and bury them ten miles below the surface and wait for geologic activity to melt them into the Earth's mantle.
Nice sentiment, but you go too easy on the concept of copyright. Paraphrased from No Safe Harbor:
Copyright was first conceived by Bloody Mary of England in 1557 as a means of censorship to persecute non-Catholics and political dissenters. It was her idea to give the printing monopoly to the London printers' guild and have anyone else caught with a printing press hanged by the state. After the proletariat took over Parliament, copyright was abolished in 1695. The publishers managed to twist the notion of copyright and get it reinstated in 1701 by saying that authors will "own" their works, even though only guild printers would have the right to print them and so the authors were still at their mercy.
The notion that copyright could exist for the sake of anything other than publishers' profits did not even exist until the drafting of the United States Constitution, where it was a compromise after a heated debate. Jefferson argued that copyright shouldn't exist at all, and only took that position when a compromise was necessary. As a result, the Constitution states that copyright is to be used for the good of society, conspicuously (but not conspicuously enough, apparently) omitting the interests of *both* authors and publishers. This is the moral equivalent of saying "You are allowed to hit people only if it makes them feel better." Apart from a few masochists out there, by the letter of the law the right may exist but should *never* be exercised. We all know how well that turned out.
So the entire concept of copyright is a reheated censorship scheme inherited from one of the most infamous dictators in history. Why anyone still thinks it's a good idea is a testament to the power of money, propaganda and groupthink.
Obviously, if China weren't producing infringing goods, there would be no demand and nobody else would produce them either. All we have to do is stop them and the problem will be solved! That is why they are the biggest problem.
You may ignore it if you wish, but do so at your peril. This report is a window into the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats who run our country and think they run the world. We ought to be using this to our advantage, to stir up pushback from other countries and put the bastards on the defensive. They're trying to bully the rest of the world into paying up--the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up for yourself and fight back.
How exactly would CISPA solve this problem? Will the police suddenly become more interested once they don't have to bother with warrants for online crimes? Or will their rate of prosecution remain the same, and just give them another tool to abuse? And, pardon my ignorance, shouldn't there be a way for you to report suspicious behavior directly to the FBI instead of dicking around with local police to get their attention?
Uh, I'm assuming they are theater-grade reels to be played in public spaces and such. Certainly does a fat lot of good to all the guys stationed in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a few tents and laptops.
To be fair, most of the sympathy is due to the fact that he is sending them to active-duty troops, not that he's a veteran himself. That's just the icing on the cake.
They may be in the pocket of the MAFIAAs but "Support the Troops" is how they get reelected. If they try to screw the troops no amount of money will save their campaigns.
"Congress will soon be signing a bill allowing additional funding for a large expansion of TSA checkpoints soon. Yes, checkpoints. No longer are the TSA relegated to the lowly airport, as 25 teams have been roving the country side conducting highway checkpoints, setting up shop at bus terminals, sporting events, and even a high school prom. Congress apparently feels as though you aren’t being reminded on a daily basis that you live in an ever-increasing police state, so they want to add twelve more “Viper Teams” to the roster." -- KEVIN HAYDEN – TRUTHISTREASON.NET
Some of the leasing companies cover all the installation and maintenance costs and then charge you either monthly or per kilowatt-hour, and the rates guarantee some (albeit smaller) guaranteed savings over utility costs.
When you install solar panels on your home, that reduces the peak load on the grid, which in turn reduces the chance that your neighbor will experience brown-outs, black-outs or rate hikes to add capacity. So it's not entirely crazy for them to subsidize your solar panels. Communism generally sounds terrible until you realize that we don't all live on individual planets.
I looked into this recently, and it is actually pretty close to the break-even point in my area. The cost to install a grid-tie system would be totally paid off by about 15 years of energy savings, assuming the rates don't up drastically, and the panels would have another 5-10 years of life left. It isn't dramatic enough that people are going out and getting solar panels to make a quick buck, but it's enough that people who want to do the right thing aren't penalized in the long run.
The vast majority of people also have crappy common sense. Saying something is intuitive without stating what background is required for it to be intuitive is just a dick move trying to make everyone else look stupid for not knowing everything you know. I learned a long time ago that things I think are obvious are frequently not to other people.
Of course, some of those things include not posing for photos on railroad tracks and making your kids ride with their seat belts buckled. The "bowling ball and a feather falling in a vacuum" question decidedly takes the back seat compared to the lack of intuition some people exhibit.
"Developing new services" could just as well mean making something to search everyone's personal files on the public Internet. "Promoting services" could mean plastering your family photos on the side of a bus. Even if Google doesn't do any of that, there is nothing stopping them from selling/bankrupting and someone else using the data under the same license. OP is not trolling.
What's your point? They can't infringe your rights because by using the service you gave them a license to use it however they want. If you didn't own the copyright or have the right to issue the license, then it will infringe upon the third party that owns the material, but never you, the user.
The last article on asteroid mining said it wouldn't be profitable even if the asteroid was 20% gold. That was based on the ludicrous assumption that the material would be brought back to earth. Going to all the effort of capturing and mining an asteroid in space just to get a bunch of air and water seems silly until you look at just how ungodly expensive air and water are *in space*, after launch and storage costs. Producing life support materials in situ is the holy grail of space exploration.
If you read the comment at the bottom of the summary, you'd know that they have a problem with ambiguity in the law as well. I expect they would not mind so much if the law did actually say "warrant for EVERYTHING", but it doesn't, which leaves the telcos in the uncomfortable position of deciding corner cases until they get sued and a court settles it. They don't like getting sued.
Anonymous Coward is right. The fact that there is "an entire industry devoted to "news," up to and including multiple 24-hour networks" is the REASON the only trustworthy source is a comedian. The rest of the industry has too much to lose by reporting fact rather than nonsense. If there wasn't so much money in lies and obfuscations, there would be more truth available.
Now we have the other kind of fascism. Instead of government controlling the companies, the companies control the government. Where does that fit into the grand scheme of things?
Would you like a radical conservative bought and paid for by a large group of corporations, or would you like a slightly more radical conservative bought and paid for by a slightly different (but mostly the same) large group of corporations? We don't really care which one you pick, just hurry up so we know who to write next year's checks to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll grant you the antimatter issue, but I still like my tongue-in-cheek jab at the GGP for saying that dark matter wouldn't be "seen" after falling into a black hole. It is "dark" after all, meaning it cannot be seen in the human sense of the word, so the difference between it being in a black hole and not being in a black hole is visibly none.
Of course, the really interesting thing is that it's possible that the actual act of falling into a black hole is the only thing that would ever make dark matter visible. So it would never be seen before, or after, but possibly could be seen *during* its descent into the singularity.
Dark matter responds to gravity, and antimatter should as well. So they'd get pulled in and never seen again.
Which really isn't saying much, since they were never seen before, either.
That would be too expensive. Better to dig a hole and bury them ten miles below the surface and wait for geologic activity to melt them into the Earth's mantle.
Oh wow, I got more sub-replies than I realized. Didn't notice you were replying to TSA.
I know how you feel.. I live in America...
LOL, So do I, actually in D.C... I just like to pretend that I don't.
Nice sentiment, but you go too easy on the concept of copyright. Paraphrased from No Safe Harbor:
Copyright was first conceived by Bloody Mary of England in 1557 as a means of censorship to persecute non-Catholics and political dissenters. It was her idea to give the printing monopoly to the London printers' guild and have anyone else caught with a printing press hanged by the state. After the proletariat took over Parliament, copyright was abolished in 1695. The publishers managed to twist the notion of copyright and get it reinstated in 1701 by saying that authors will "own" their works, even though only guild printers would have the right to print them and so the authors were still at their mercy.
The notion that copyright could exist for the sake of anything other than publishers' profits did not even exist until the drafting of the United States Constitution, where it was a compromise after a heated debate. Jefferson argued that copyright shouldn't exist at all, and only took that position when a compromise was necessary. As a result, the Constitution states that copyright is to be used for the good of society, conspicuously (but not conspicuously enough, apparently) omitting the interests of *both* authors and publishers. This is the moral equivalent of saying "You are allowed to hit people only if it makes them feel better." Apart from a few masochists out there, by the letter of the law the right may exist but should *never* be exercised. We all know how well that turned out.
So the entire concept of copyright is a reheated censorship scheme inherited from one of the most infamous dictators in history. Why anyone still thinks it's a good idea is a testament to the power of money, propaganda and groupthink.
Obviously, if China weren't producing infringing goods, there would be no demand and nobody else would produce them either. All we have to do is stop them and the problem will be solved! That is why they are the biggest problem.
You may ignore it if you wish, but do so at your peril. This report is a window into the minds of the politicians and bureaucrats who run our country and think they run the world. We ought to be using this to our advantage, to stir up pushback from other countries and put the bastards on the defensive. They're trying to bully the rest of the world into paying up--the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up for yourself and fight back.
How exactly would CISPA solve this problem? Will the police suddenly become more interested once they don't have to bother with warrants for online crimes? Or will their rate of prosecution remain the same, and just give them another tool to abuse? And, pardon my ignorance, shouldn't there be a way for you to report suspicious behavior directly to the FBI instead of dicking around with local police to get their attention?
Uh, I'm assuming they are theater-grade reels to be played in public spaces and such. Certainly does a fat lot of good to all the guys stationed in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a few tents and laptops.
They'll probably try to write off all those "lost sales" as "donations" on their taxes and get a nice fat donation themselves from the taxpayers.
To be fair, most of the sympathy is due to the fact that he is sending them to active-duty troops, not that he's a veteran himself. That's just the icing on the cake.
They may be in the pocket of the MAFIAAs but "Support the Troops" is how they get reelected. If they try to screw the troops no amount of money will save their campaigns.
Now if this was random stopping of people on the public streets, we would have something to talk about.
Well then let's talk about it:
"Congress will soon be signing a bill allowing additional funding for a large expansion of TSA checkpoints soon. Yes, checkpoints. No longer are the TSA relegated to the lowly airport, as 25 teams have been roving the country side conducting highway checkpoints, setting up shop at bus terminals, sporting events, and even a high school prom. Congress apparently feels as though you aren’t being reminded on a daily basis that you live in an ever-increasing police state, so they want to add twelve more “Viper Teams” to the roster." -- KEVIN HAYDEN – TRUTHISTREASON.NET
Some of the leasing companies cover all the installation and maintenance costs and then charge you either monthly or per kilowatt-hour, and the rates guarantee some (albeit smaller) guaranteed savings over utility costs.
When you install solar panels on your home, that reduces the peak load on the grid, which in turn reduces the chance that your neighbor will experience brown-outs, black-outs or rate hikes to add capacity. So it's not entirely crazy for them to subsidize your solar panels. Communism generally sounds terrible until you realize that we don't all live on individual planets.
I looked into this recently, and it is actually pretty close to the break-even point in my area. The cost to install a grid-tie system would be totally paid off by about 15 years of energy savings, assuming the rates don't up drastically, and the panels would have another 5-10 years of life left. It isn't dramatic enough that people are going out and getting solar panels to make a quick buck, but it's enough that people who want to do the right thing aren't penalized in the long run.
The vast majority of people also have crappy common sense. Saying something is intuitive without stating what background is required for it to be intuitive is just a dick move trying to make everyone else look stupid for not knowing everything you know. I learned a long time ago that things I think are obvious are frequently not to other people.
Of course, some of those things include not posing for photos on railroad tracks and making your kids ride with their seat belts buckled. The "bowling ball and a feather falling in a vacuum" question decidedly takes the back seat compared to the lack of intuition some people exhibit.
"Developing new services" could just as well mean making something to search everyone's personal files on the public Internet. "Promoting services" could mean plastering your family photos on the side of a bus. Even if Google doesn't do any of that, there is nothing stopping them from selling/bankrupting and someone else using the data under the same license. OP is not trolling.
What's your point? They can't infringe your rights because by using the service you gave them a license to use it however they want. If you didn't own the copyright or have the right to issue the license, then it will infringe upon the third party that owns the material, but never you, the user.
The last article on asteroid mining said it wouldn't be profitable even if the asteroid was 20% gold. That was based on the ludicrous assumption that the material would be brought back to earth. Going to all the effort of capturing and mining an asteroid in space just to get a bunch of air and water seems silly until you look at just how ungodly expensive air and water are *in space*, after launch and storage costs. Producing life support materials in situ is the holy grail of space exploration.
If you read the comment at the bottom of the summary, you'd know that they have a problem with ambiguity in the law as well. I expect they would not mind so much if the law did actually say "warrant for EVERYTHING", but it doesn't, which leaves the telcos in the uncomfortable position of deciding corner cases until they get sued and a court settles it. They don't like getting sued.
Anonymous Coward is right. The fact that there is "an entire industry devoted to "news," up to and including multiple 24-hour networks" is the REASON the only trustworthy source is a comedian. The rest of the industry has too much to lose by reporting fact rather than nonsense. If there wasn't so much money in lies and obfuscations, there would be more truth available.
Now we have the other kind of fascism. Instead of government controlling the companies, the companies control the government. Where does that fit into the grand scheme of things?
Stop electing
Already done.
Would you like a radical conservative bought and paid for by a large group of corporations, or would you like a slightly more radical conservative bought and paid for by a slightly different (but mostly the same) large group of corporations? We don't really care which one you pick, just hurry up so we know who to write next year's checks to.