I find it hard to believe that viewing a picture on wikipedia creates a demand.
Although it's a well known^Wdenied fact that piracy increases demand for its subject so maybe it does.
intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.
I find that intermediate layers such as Python tend to produce above-standard apps due to the developers (ie. me) not having to implement every little detail manually. Number of Bugs ~ k * Amount of Code, well known fact.
That's absurd. The only way to correctly use this new multitasking API is by directly coding your program in C? A native C application is just a heap of machine code. How is a program compiled in any other language any different? Or how about another language translated to C then compiled natively?
I honestly find it hard to believe that these restrictions are necessary.
We might be able to adapt. 2 C isn't much of a difference for our human bodies. But what about the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms? Shit is going to go extinct. Shit that we rely for our food supply. Pollinators for our crops. Animals and plants that provide nutrition for our crops. The food chain, essentially, will go to shit. Reduced rainfall in some areas will drastically reduce our ability to grow crops. Not to mention rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events, etc etc.
Yes, we (humanity) will survive. I will probably survive. But it won't be pleasant, or anywhere near as comfortable as our lives now (in a 1st world country). We don't live in a vacuum, and those things economists call 'externalities' aren't actually. I'd rather do something about the situation.
Right.... The scientists admit they've been fudging data and making mistakes (which just happen to boost their case), all while being funded by the same governments who would greatly benefit from "suspending democracy".
"The scientists?" You think the whole scientific community is engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to fabricate the problem of "global warming" involving thousands of scientists all around the world? Not even Al Gore could arrange something like that. And neither I doubt could the Illuminati.
Look, stop asking us to migrate to MySQL! We couldn't possibly afford an enterprise level database like that. Anyway, it's fine as it is, the Access database only needs recovering every couple of days.
It's actually rather sad that the government is more likely to listen to a couple of officials in the USA than its own citizens on something like this. It's absurd that the US saying "don't do this" should be more compelling than 90% of voters saying the same thing.
I'm for being able to say "No, I don't want to look at porn right now. Computer, filter my search results excluding porn." As opposed to being told "No you can't look at porn here. Or slashdot. Or X, Y, Z..."
The difference is one is a feature, the other is censorship.
And if people want to use bing, they can. Even if it's an inferior search engine that doesn't include the ability to filter porn out of its search results.
Oh, maybe that was what you said. I assumed you meant "what you can not perceive [now] can not effect you [in the future]". Hence the example, which was just pointing out that things can force you to perceive them (which is I guess a sort of effect on you), even if you can't yet perceive them.
Sure, you can shut your eyes and refuse to perceive the 2-tonne grizzly bear coming to disembowel you, and in that manner it can't effect you. Yet. Until it reaches you and you realise that the feeling of being ripped to shreds as well as your subsequent death is not something you can refuse to perceive.
Oh, you wanted a car analogy?
by taking what you are not entitled to, you remove the ability of the person that created/marketed it to buy their own bread.
Ah, but the thing is that you don't. Let's be clear: downloading itself has zero effect on the author of any work. The only real costs involved in information transfer are the energy use of the routers running the internet and the servers being used, neither of which are liable to the author, since file sharers generally download from each other.
The most you can say is that by downloading rather than buying you have deprived the artist of the income they would have gained from you. But when you wouldn't have bought it anyway, there isn't any income to deprive the artist of. Net effect = $0.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
yes it has been in common law for centuries. If you don't pay for the goods you don't get them. Simple.
Law is different from morality. You can't justify a law with another law.
If it costs more than you want to pay then you don't get to have it. Simple. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then you still don't get to have it.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
This may be news to you, but laws and rules generally have to have a reason to exist. The law against stealing bread exists for a reason - because stealing harms the person you steal from - it doesn't exist for its own sake. How does downloading something one would never have otherwise paid for harm anyone? It doesn't. Ergo, there is no moral reason for this to be forbidden by law, and no moral reason not to do it.
Maybe they're not actually retarded. Maybe they just get a kick out of making the shittiest most obvious counterfeit they can make that would still not be detected. Wouldn't you feel so superior if you could write "$10" in texta on a blank piece of paper and actually buy stuff with it? When you can sell windows 7 at full price with inkjet labels in a regular dvd case, it becomes a sort of game - maybe they just enjoy screwing with stupidest 10% of the population!
Go back into the list of authorities and Edit the ones that you deleted. You should find that all the "trust this certificate for $ACTIVITY" boxes are unchecked now. It's basically the same as deleting them (in fact possibly better, since you can still identify sites that use the certificates without necessarily trusting them).
It seems to me there's a bit of difference between sexual harassment of a co-worker and making a joke about someone on the other side of a wall, where the only interaction the two people are ever likely have is through the scanner's monitor for a 15 second scan.
Is it sexual harassment to make dirty jokes about the actors in movies?
No, you can't "steal" a number. Not even a social security number. You can copy it (via hacking, etc) which is indeed illegal (violation of privacy & hacking laws), but it's not stealing. The difference really shouldn't be that hard to understand...
Looking at all the silly comments, it amusing that about everyone tries to discuss co2 as a pollutant. I guess plants do not get a vote yet, for which we can be thankful.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you hear? Space shuttles that run on magic were invented in 2003.
I find it hard to believe that viewing a picture on wikipedia creates a demand. Although it's a well known^Wdenied fact that piracy increases demand for its subject so maybe it does.
intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform.
I find that intermediate layers such as Python tend to produce above-standard apps due to the developers (ie. me) not having to implement every little detail manually. Number of Bugs ~ k * Amount of Code, well known fact.
That's absurd. The only way to correctly use this new multitasking API is by directly coding your program in C? A native C application is just a heap of machine code. How is a program compiled in any other language any different? Or how about another language translated to C then compiled natively?
I honestly find it hard to believe that these restrictions are necessary.
We might be able to adapt. 2 C isn't much of a difference for our human bodies. But what about the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms? Shit is going to go extinct. Shit that we rely for our food supply. Pollinators for our crops. Animals and plants that provide nutrition for our crops. The food chain, essentially, will go to shit. Reduced rainfall in some areas will drastically reduce our ability to grow crops. Not to mention rising sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events, etc etc.
Yes, we (humanity) will survive. I will probably survive. But it won't be pleasant, or anywhere near as comfortable as our lives now (in a 1st world country). We don't live in a vacuum, and those things economists call 'externalities' aren't actually. I'd rather do something about the situation.
Right.... The scientists admit they've been fudging data and making mistakes (which just happen to boost their case), all while being funded by the same governments who would greatly benefit from "suspending democracy".
"The scientists?" You think the whole scientific community is engaged in some sort of massive conspiracy to fabricate the problem of "global warming" involving thousands of scientists all around the world? Not even Al Gore could arrange something like that. And neither I doubt could the Illuminati.
Look, stop asking us to migrate to MySQL! We couldn't possibly afford an enterprise level database like that. Anyway, it's fine as it is, the Access database only needs recovering every couple of days.
It's actually rather sad that the government is more likely to listen to a couple of officials in the USA than its own citizens on something like this. It's absurd that the US saying "don't do this" should be more compelling than 90% of voters saying the same thing.
I'm for being able to say "No, I don't want to look at porn right now. Computer, filter my search results excluding porn." As opposed to being told "No you can't look at porn here. Or slashdot. Or X, Y, Z..."
The difference is one is a feature, the other is censorship.
And if people want to use bing, they can. Even if it's an inferior search engine that doesn't include the ability to filter porn out of its search results.
$ gcc -c file.c
SINTAX EROR: your code are bork.
I believe that's what google's 'safesearch' is for. Note that it's an option, not a requirement. Which is kind of the point.
Oh, maybe that was what you said. I assumed you meant "what you can not perceive [now] can not effect you [in the future]". Hence the example, which was just pointing out that things can force you to perceive them (which is I guess a sort of effect on you), even if you can't yet perceive them.
Anyway...
Sure, you can shut your eyes and refuse to perceive the 2-tonne grizzly bear coming to disembowel you, and in that manner it can't effect you. Yet. Until it reaches you and you realise that the feeling of being ripped to shreds as well as your subsequent death is not something you can refuse to perceive. Oh, you wanted a car analogy?
I'm tempted to explain the joke, but I don't really want to.
Just mod parent funny, then it will actually be funny!
by taking what you are not entitled to, you remove the ability of the person that created/marketed it to buy their own bread.
Ah, but the thing is that you don't. Let's be clear: downloading itself has zero effect on the author of any work. The only real costs involved in information transfer are the energy use of the routers running the internet and the servers being used, neither of which are liable to the author, since file sharers generally download from each other.
The most you can say is that by downloading rather than buying you have deprived the artist of the income they would have gained from you. But when you wouldn't have bought it anyway, there isn't any income to deprive the artist of. Net effect = $0.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
yes it has been in common law for centuries. If you don't pay for the goods you don't get them. Simple.
Law is different from morality. You can't justify a law with another law.
Dear sir,
Mean and average are actually the same thing. The word you are looking for is 'median'.
Sincerely, A Pedant.
If it costs more than you want to pay then you don't get to have it. Simple. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then you still don't get to have it.
And why would that be? Can you justify this rule?
This may be news to you, but laws and rules generally have to have a reason to exist. The law against stealing bread exists for a reason - because stealing harms the person you steal from - it doesn't exist for its own sake. How does downloading something one would never have otherwise paid for harm anyone? It doesn't. Ergo, there is no moral reason for this to be forbidden by law, and no moral reason not to do it.
Maybe they're not actually retarded. Maybe they just get a kick out of making the shittiest most obvious counterfeit they can make that would still not be detected. Wouldn't you feel so superior if you could write "$10" in texta on a blank piece of paper and actually buy stuff with it? When you can sell windows 7 at full price with inkjet labels in a regular dvd case, it becomes a sort of game - maybe they just enjoy screwing with stupidest 10% of the population!
Or they could just be stupid/lazy, of course.
Go back into the list of authorities and Edit the ones that you deleted. You should find that all the "trust this certificate for $ACTIVITY" boxes are unchecked now. It's basically the same as deleting them (in fact possibly better, since you can still identify sites that use the certificates without necessarily trusting them).
What, with real badgers?
I don't know, I wouldn't have called it sudden. More like a long drawn-out suffocation from the smell.
It seems to me there's a bit of difference between sexual harassment of a co-worker and making a joke about someone on the other side of a wall, where the only interaction the two people are ever likely have is through the scanner's monitor for a 15 second scan. Is it sexual harassment to make dirty jokes about the actors in movies?
No, you can't "steal" a number. Not even a social security number. You can copy it (via hacking, etc) which is indeed illegal (violation of privacy & hacking laws), but it's not stealing. The difference really shouldn't be that hard to understand...
Looking at all the silly comments, it amusing that about everyone tries to discuss co2 as a pollutant. I guess plants do not get a vote yet, for which we can be thankful.
Sorry, your post suddenly triggered a memory and I just have to post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo
To quote Karl Kruszelniki - "Carbon dioxide isn't a fuel, it's a byproduct! Calling CO2 'life' is like calling faeces 'food'!"
Presumably it was a particularly violent birth.