You do know that the Congress that approved Bush's crimes was different from the one now entertaining motions to impeach him, right? And that official impeachment introduction is a lot more than just "hot air".
Ever since Congress was converted by the 2006 elections from the Republicans who undeniably conspired with Bush on these crimes into a Democratic one, there's been actions towards impeaching Bush. It's true that not all Democrats are willing to do it. And that some of the worst foot-draggers are those who run the Senate and the House, because they indeed are more interested in running against Bush in 2008 than in stopping his crimes.
But your argument against impeachment puts you in league with them. Impeaching Bush would stop his crimes now, rather than leave him 1/8 of an entire presidential term to commit more.
But more important, impeaching Bush now would make it harder for the next president - probably Obama, a Democrat - and subsequent ones from committing these kinds of crimes. It would stop Congress, even a Democratic one, from collaborating.
What kind of masochist doesn't want that fix put in place ASAP?
How many bug reports have you even bothered to file with X.org? That's what makes a user part of the community. Not just using the software for free, which just makes you a user.
You don't understand open source projects at all. You think they just mean that you can get whatever you want for free. Do something to help and then your whining will mean something.
The code's low quality is the fault of the community, too. Who do you think wrote that complex code?
If you're that savvy, why not spend a little of your time patching that existing code to factor out some of the unnecessary complexity? Instead, you're spending your time yelling at me on Slashdot, which does precisely nothing.
No, because your money paying for Windows employs people at Microsoft means you're doing your part. And because Microsoft is paying people to write bad code means they're screwing up their part.
See the difference between proprietary and closed software?
So rather than help with the X.org that's letting you look at this post right now, you're trying to get everyone to drop it? Why don't you spend a little time actually doing something to make X.org better, even if only for your own desktop's good?
X.org is an open project. It's as good as its developers. The fact that millions of people's daily computing depends on it, but developers don't fix bugs very much, is the fault of the community.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader like everyone else, except the too few who actually do something.
X.org is an open project. It's as good as its developers. The fact that millions of people's daily computing depends on it, but developers don't fix bugs very much, is the fault of the community.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader.
Let's see, you voted for Bush twice, and his rubber stamp Republican Congress any number of times, though you don't like him now. Suddenly, when the results of their Conservative government are undeniable, they're not really "Conservative". I could have told you that any time, that they were lying to you about conserving anything, but you Conservatives can't stand the truth.
Your Bush cut taxes while creating catastrophic, expensive problems. But you think that we shouldn't pay more taxes. I agree. I believe that every one of you asshole "Conservatives" who voted for Bush and his Republicans all these years should get an invoice for a few hundred thousand dollars to pay your debt to society. That's personal responsibility, the kind that you "Conservatives" are always talking about. Except, of course, when it's your person. Then someone else should go to Iraq to fight and die for lies.
But, after all, what you're really interested in is your Slashdot karma. You're so rich in karma that you don't have to live in reality. You're not responsible for what you've done, your fellow Conservatives aren't Conservative, your huge government doesn't need taxes to spend, everyone's dumb except for you.
I conclude that you don't actually exist. The only problem is that there's so goddamn many of you. Not enough to matter anymore, though. Not at the polls, at least. But indeed still enough of you that sending out those invoices would be the right way to go. That is, if any of you nonexistent Conservatives had enough sense to actually make any money other than in debt. Unless perhaps you own a $billion corporation. Which you don't. How stupid of you.
I'm glad I don't have to obey the whims of a god whose entire work of creation is just some kind of mysterious "gotcha" game that ends in eternal torture for whoever doesn't "get it".
That sounds more like the kind of sadistic prank some infinitely powerful evil spirit would make all of life boil down to. You know, the devil. Creationists are devil worshippers. OK, now that is more consistent with my experience.
Oh, right, the planet's population of thousands of climate scientists have a complete lack of respect for science, which is why they agree that stopping human Greenhouse pollution would stop the climate change that's threatening our civilization.
But not you. No, you're the one whose.sig says "Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of." in every message you post, oh "Bill, Shooter of Bul". Yes, you're right, all the climate scientists are wrong, the climate isn't changing, you can have your SUV and its $20:gallon gas with the AC blasting and the windows open.
This display might work for reliable color matching, but not for the reasons supplied.
The main problem with getting color on one object, say a display monitor, to look exactly the same as on another object, say a magazine page, is mostly the problem of gamma, a nonlinear contrast range in different light levels. And, of course, the differing illumination of the two objects in different places, which is the actual source of the possible range of colors that can be seen coming from the object.
The human eye is very sensitive to different spectral content of light detected coming from objects. Sunlight starts out with different colors than the light shining on a display monitor or generated by the display. The magazine in the sunlight filters a range of colors through its ink, then reflecting off the paper (which is itself some color, even if that color is "close" to "white"), back through the ink, and to the eye. The display monitor's light starts out a different color from the sunlight, then is filtered through and reflected from very different materials than ink and paper. By the time the light reaches the eye from each object, they're very different. And each instance is a little different, owing to manufacturing quality variations.
And then gamma has to be factored in, which tends to dominate the color content reaching the eye. The gamma is a kind of nonlinear "contrast" (as in a TV control) in different frequencies, varying as the intensity of the same illumination is increased. But even that illumination generally isn't just the same color at all intensities, because it's emitted from some manufactured material that has its own gamma (or emission equivalent) and "color temperature" bias. Which is in turn different from sunlight, which is more stable in its source color range than most manufactured materials (except lasers, a completely different kind of illumination that looks completely different from sunlight).
Color calibration works best when there's a feedback loop of the data passed between different output objects (like paper/ink and a display monitor), linked by a video sensor (that has its own color calibration problems). It's an extremely hard problem. When I was a member of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG, who created the image file format - I helped with the color spaces spec), we spent a lot of time getting it close enough for commercial use. But we knew enough to tell that "solving" the problem 100% was not going to work. And even now, almost two decades later, it's still not solved. But every few years new tech makes it affordable for industries to add another "9" to what was once 99.999% accurate. The 30 bit gamut of this display monitor means that it doesn't constrain the range of colors as much as have old technologies. But the calibration requries sophisticated processes and software to automate them, as well as a method for comparing to actual outputs. And it still can't account for variances in manufacturing the target output media.
For Hollywood, this problem might be close to solved, though. Because movies are moving to digital projection, which can be manufactured to high precision of consistency in materials and their interaction with light, and from the same parts as the production display monitors. If all the theaters used the same DLP chips, LEDs and image surfaces (or to the precisely same standard specs) for their projectors as the studios did for all their display monitors and as all people did for their home TVs, then colors would be pretty close to identical in all those environments (except for that variable ambient lighting). These display monitors might flexibly replicate a lot of different environments to match, but the matched objects are still highly variable. For $3500, they better deliver something good.
The wireless networks must be opened to competitive access exactly the same way the wired networks were opened. The monopoly abuse of the market in wireless is even worse than it ever was over wires.
Not only for great justice. But opening the networks will expand economic opportunity for a wealth of new services. Telcos will hate it, but that's a sign of success.
Typical supply side control freak thinking. The tools market of course is alive, more alive than ever. Bigger than ever, with more and more complex needs than ever, with more money than ever, delivering more value than ever. The vast array of tools is blindingly evident, new ones, with more output into more working software than ever, more users, tools everywhere you look but still they demand "MORE!"... It's the tools vendors who are the walking dead.
Because these tools vendors work from that most common commercial fallacy: the supply side power trip. People who say "hmmm, I've got this thing, now who will buy it?", not "who wants something, and how do I give it to them?" People who think of the market as their servant, customers like sheep to fleece, or really that they're doing customers a favor by serving them.
The reality of successful commerce is to find what people in markets want, and then find ways to give it to them. Ways that send value to the market that's recognized enough to expect value delivered back to the vendor, measured in money.
There's lots of ways to do that, depending on the specific market and what it wants, how it's delivered, and what the vendor will take in return. But here's something that hasn't occurred to these tools vendors: their tools are ways of communicating with APIs. The tools contain expertise in those APIs, automated for the tool user. If tool vendors really sold subscriptions to their API expertise, they could capture an audience. A grand "API support" system, that included help desks (by email/web/phone), training, seminars, reference documentation and source code, training with executable libraries, and yes, the tools. Give away the tools, open the source, invite the community into the tools source development. That ecosystem is worth real money to serious developers who make money from them (and serious hobbyists who take their hobby seriously). Giving away the tools that support their API support, in their specific style, with their specific tool APIs, would harvest all those people who need help. Every copy of their tool that people share for free should have a 1-click (or commandline) that connects them to commercial support, for a fee (though giving away a few sessions is also good marketing).
The tools market will of course only grow, as the industry globalizes, and gains ever more value through the "network effect". Tools vendors aren't the prom queen anymore, since tools development is so wide open, built on the underlying open source OS'es and apps (and other tools). They have to cater to the real needs of the market. For which this huger, richer market will pay. But not anymore because they're just told to pay. Now the vendors have to ask, nicely, with gifts. Or they're as dead as they say the market is now.
I remember in the 1980s when game vendors started burning bad sectors into Atari 400/800 floppies on which they distributed their products. Their game's loader SW would try to read those sectors and abort if they weren't unreadable, thinking that pirates couldn't replicate them with just diskdup SW.
The Atari 810 floppy drive (the highest density storage available, like a 1TB HD is now, and the only game in town other than ridiculous tape drives, except for the extremely rare and stratospherically expensive 5MB Corvus HD) had a little potentiometer in its circuitboard controlling timing of the eletromagnetic signal waveform sent to the write head, that could be turned out of calibration to deliberately write a bad sector. So pirates would map the original's bad sector list, then copy the good sectors, then detune the pot, then write to the list of bad sectors - ruining them, then retune the pot and boot the copy.
Sure, that's pretty complex, voids the floppy warranty, and intimidates a lot of potential pirates. So instead, some people just stuck a disklabel to the edge of the target floppy, left the label sticking out of the drive, and grabbed that tab to jiggle the floppy while writing to each of the bad sectors - ruining them. Presto!
Besides, the pro pirates had the same mass floppy duplicators with the same programmable "write bad sector" circuitry that the original game vendors had, so the large, commercial pirates weren't fazed (pun intended;) one bit (gotcha again >:P), but lots of honest people couldn't back up their games (which were sensitive to all kinds of transient EM, like paperclip collector magnets on desktops), and the vendors spent valuable time and money on worthless copy protection.
In fact, beating the copy protection was often more fun than the game. So around the world people were working to beat it, even if they never played the game again, but gave copies to friends just to show how ubergeek they were.
This cat & mouse game is in fact the exact model for all SW copy protection. It's become only a worse value waste for the SW producers, especially in content. They should use their only advantage, their earlier possession of the SW/content, to make big bucks at the first release, just like Hollywood does for movie premiere big weekends. Then let the pirates do their distribution work for free, and charge for support, customization, and subscriptions to upgrades. And build brands to sell their future releases.
Because "Don't Copy That Floppy" has been a losing battle, long before people would say "what's a floppy?"
Rev. Richard Patrick is blaming violent video games and music for crimes that he say has affected 90% of his congregation in one way or another.
So 90% of his congregation is involved in violent crimes (as perp or victim). Why doesn't he blame himself? He's the one responsible for protecting their souls. 90% is a high correlation. Maybe Rev. Patrick is the common factor that's responsible for these crimes.
At the very least, he's insulting god by saying that rappers and videogame devs are stronger than god. But maybe god just doesn't have nearly as good an agent in Rev. Patrick as does the devil.
Why don't you write a diary about it on the Daily Kos blog? If well written (focused on your ID theft, mentioning your other problems only in actual connection with your crisis), it could get some proper attention. Perhaps at first only by other ID activists or people who might know tips for your recovery. Maybe by some journalists who could pressure your DA to act. Or perhaps only as more popular pressure that could force change in 2009, when the Democrats take over and replace your US Attorney (Federal prosecutor) and probably your regional FBI chiefs with a different staff, who might be less corporate and worthless to the people as the current Bush crew.
Because the LEDs would have to outshine 1.3KW:m^2 sunlight from 400Mm away. Which would require shipping all those tons of LEDs to the Moon and keeping them maintained. And which would suck power.
Instead, just leaving the logo as bare, shiny Moon surface, while the surface around it is blackened with solar collectors, costs nearly nothing to make, and is permanent.
Also, with the kind of energy a lunar solar base could generate, I don't know if the energy efficiency of a space elevator is necessary. But with all that power, why not build one, just for the awesomeness of it?
Multiple collectors aren't a big problem. Two at the poles would work. But for the benefit, there's no reason not to have a few dozen.
In fact, since the Moon gets about 1.3KW:m^2, a few thousand Km^2 collectors sending back only 10KW:m^2 beams to maybe a few thousand m^2 seaborne Earth receivers would have to send to multiple Earth receivers anyway. Otherwise the laser intensity could be too dangerous if it got repointed somehow, despite the return laser loop (doing some damage in the 1.35s it takes for a locking return laser to get back to the Moon transmitter).
the QS22 boasts an open environment, utilizing the flexibility of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as the primary operating system and the open development environment of Eclipse.
That means that a PS3 running Linux, even with its ridiculously low 512MB RAM, can be used as a $500 development platform for these CellBE BladeServers.
And, in turn, some QS22 SW might be usable on the PS3, if it can be ported to use the tiny RAM. Or if someone hooks an i-RAM bank to the SATA port as swap/ramdisk, using perhaps iSCSI over its Gb-e for storage.
Cover thousands of square Km with solar collectors, and laser the power back to Earth (at about 10KW:m^2) to a floating collector at sea, then over to my undersea grotto lair. Leave my logo carved out in the collector surface in bare moondust, so my power corp is advertised globally every night (well, about half the nights).
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that the Congress that approved Bush's crimes was different from the one now entertaining motions to impeach him, right? And that official impeachment introduction is a lot more than just "hot air".
Ever since Congress was converted by the 2006 elections from the Republicans who undeniably conspired with Bush on these crimes into a Democratic one, there's been actions towards impeaching Bush. It's true that not all Democrats are willing to do it. And that some of the worst foot-draggers are those who run the Senate and the House, because they indeed are more interested in running against Bush in 2008 than in stopping his crimes.
But your argument against impeachment puts you in league with them. Impeaching Bush would stop his crimes now, rather than leave him 1/8 of an entire presidential term to commit more.
But more important, impeaching Bush now would make it harder for the next president - probably Obama, a Democrat - and subsequent ones from committing these kinds of crimes. It would stop Congress, even a Democratic one, from collaborating.
What kind of masochist doesn't want that fix put in place ASAP?
How many bug reports have you even bothered to file with X.org? That's what makes a user part of the community. Not just using the software for free, which just makes you a user.
You don't understand open source projects at all. You think they just mean that you can get whatever you want for free. Do something to help and then your whining will mean something.
The code's low quality is the fault of the community, too. Who do you think wrote that complex code?
If you're that savvy, why not spend a little of your time patching that existing code to factor out some of the unnecessary complexity? Instead, you're spending your time yelling at me on Slashdot, which does precisely nothing.
No, because your money paying for Windows employs people at Microsoft means you're doing your part. And because Microsoft is paying people to write bad code means they're screwing up their part.
See the difference between proprietary and closed software?
So rather than help with the X.org that's letting you look at this post right now, you're trying to get everyone to drop it? Why don't you spend a little time actually doing something to make X.org better, even if only for your own desktop's good?
X.org is an open project. It's as good as its developers. The fact that millions of people's daily computing depends on it, but developers don't fix bugs very much, is the fault of the community.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader like everyone else, except the too few who actually do something.
X.org is an open project. It's as good as its developers. The fact that millions of people's daily computing depends on it, but developers don't fix bugs very much, is the fault of the community.
"X.org" is you. Lift a finger to help sometime. That gives you the right to complain when you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just a mouthy freeloader.
Let's see, you voted for Bush twice, and his rubber stamp Republican Congress any number of times, though you don't like him now. Suddenly, when the results of their Conservative government are undeniable, they're not really "Conservative". I could have told you that any time, that they were lying to you about conserving anything, but you Conservatives can't stand the truth.
Your Bush cut taxes while creating catastrophic, expensive problems. But you think that we shouldn't pay more taxes. I agree. I believe that every one of you asshole "Conservatives" who voted for Bush and his Republicans all these years should get an invoice for a few hundred thousand dollars to pay your debt to society. That's personal responsibility, the kind that you "Conservatives" are always talking about. Except, of course, when it's your person. Then someone else should go to Iraq to fight and die for lies.
But, after all, what you're really interested in is your Slashdot karma. You're so rich in karma that you don't have to live in reality. You're not responsible for what you've done, your fellow Conservatives aren't Conservative, your huge government doesn't need taxes to spend, everyone's dumb except for you.
I conclude that you don't actually exist. The only problem is that there's so goddamn many of you. Not enough to matter anymore, though. Not at the polls, at least. But indeed still enough of you that sending out those invoices would be the right way to go. That is, if any of you nonexistent Conservatives had enough sense to actually make any money other than in debt. Unless perhaps you own a $billion corporation. Which you don't. How stupid of you.
I'm glad I don't have to obey the whims of a god whose entire work of creation is just some kind of mysterious "gotcha" game that ends in eternal torture for whoever doesn't "get it".
That sounds more like the kind of sadistic prank some infinitely powerful evil spirit would make all of life boil down to. You know, the devil. Creationists are devil worshippers. OK, now that is more consistent with my experience.
Oh, right, the planet's population of thousands of climate scientists have a complete lack of respect for science, which is why they agree that stopping human Greenhouse pollution would stop the climate change that's threatening our civilization.
.sig says "Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of." in every message you post, oh "Bill, Shooter of Bul". Yes, you're right, all the climate scientists are wrong, the climate isn't changing, you can have your SUV and its $20:gallon gas with the AC blasting and the windows open.
But not you. No, you're the one whose
This display might work for reliable color matching, but not for the reasons supplied.
The main problem with getting color on one object, say a display monitor, to look exactly the same as on another object, say a magazine page, is mostly the problem of gamma, a nonlinear contrast range in different light levels. And, of course, the differing illumination of the two objects in different places, which is the actual source of the possible range of colors that can be seen coming from the object.
The human eye is very sensitive to different spectral content of light detected coming from objects. Sunlight starts out with different colors than the light shining on a display monitor or generated by the display. The magazine in the sunlight filters a range of colors through its ink, then reflecting off the paper (which is itself some color, even if that color is "close" to "white"), back through the ink, and to the eye. The display monitor's light starts out a different color from the sunlight, then is filtered through and reflected from very different materials than ink and paper. By the time the light reaches the eye from each object, they're very different. And each instance is a little different, owing to manufacturing quality variations.
And then gamma has to be factored in, which tends to dominate the color content reaching the eye. The gamma is a kind of nonlinear "contrast" (as in a TV control) in different frequencies, varying as the intensity of the same illumination is increased. But even that illumination generally isn't just the same color at all intensities, because it's emitted from some manufactured material that has its own gamma (or emission equivalent) and "color temperature" bias. Which is in turn different from sunlight, which is more stable in its source color range than most manufactured materials (except lasers, a completely different kind of illumination that looks completely different from sunlight).
Color calibration works best when there's a feedback loop of the data passed between different output objects (like paper/ink and a display monitor), linked by a video sensor (that has its own color calibration problems). It's an extremely hard problem. When I was a member of the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG, who created the image file format - I helped with the color spaces spec), we spent a lot of time getting it close enough for commercial use. But we knew enough to tell that "solving" the problem 100% was not going to work. And even now, almost two decades later, it's still not solved. But every few years new tech makes it affordable for industries to add another "9" to what was once 99.999% accurate. The 30 bit gamut of this display monitor means that it doesn't constrain the range of colors as much as have old technologies. But the calibration requries sophisticated processes and software to automate them, as well as a method for comparing to actual outputs. And it still can't account for variances in manufacturing the target output media.
For Hollywood, this problem might be close to solved, though. Because movies are moving to digital projection, which can be manufactured to high precision of consistency in materials and their interaction with light, and from the same parts as the production display monitors. If all the theaters used the same DLP chips, LEDs and image surfaces (or to the precisely same standard specs) for their projectors as the studios did for all their display monitors and as all people did for their home TVs, then colors would be pretty close to identical in all those environments (except for that variable ambient lighting). These display monitors might flexibly replicate a lot of different environments to match, but the matched objects are still highly variable. For $3500, they better deliver something good.
The wireless networks must be opened to competitive access exactly the same way the wired networks were opened. The monopoly abuse of the market in wireless is even worse than it ever was over wires.
Not only for great justice. But opening the networks will expand economic opportunity for a wealth of new services. Telcos will hate it, but that's a sign of success.
Typical supply side control freak thinking. The tools market of course is alive, more alive than ever. Bigger than ever, with more and more complex needs than ever, with more money than ever, delivering more value than ever. The vast array of tools is blindingly evident, new ones, with more output into more working software than ever, more users, tools everywhere you look but still they demand "MORE!"... It's the tools vendors who are the walking dead.
Because these tools vendors work from that most common commercial fallacy: the supply side power trip. People who say "hmmm, I've got this thing, now who will buy it?", not "who wants something, and how do I give it to them?" People who think of the market as their servant, customers like sheep to fleece, or really that they're doing customers a favor by serving them.
The reality of successful commerce is to find what people in markets want, and then find ways to give it to them. Ways that send value to the market that's recognized enough to expect value delivered back to the vendor, measured in money.
There's lots of ways to do that, depending on the specific market and what it wants, how it's delivered, and what the vendor will take in return. But here's something that hasn't occurred to these tools vendors: their tools are ways of communicating with APIs. The tools contain expertise in those APIs, automated for the tool user. If tool vendors really sold subscriptions to their API expertise, they could capture an audience. A grand "API support" system, that included help desks (by email/web/phone), training, seminars, reference documentation and source code, training with executable libraries, and yes, the tools. Give away the tools, open the source, invite the community into the tools source development. That ecosystem is worth real money to serious developers who make money from them (and serious hobbyists who take their hobby seriously). Giving away the tools that support their API support, in their specific style, with their specific tool APIs, would harvest all those people who need help. Every copy of their tool that people share for free should have a 1-click (or commandline) that connects them to commercial support, for a fee (though giving away a few sessions is also good marketing).
The tools market will of course only grow, as the industry globalizes, and gains ever more value through the "network effect". Tools vendors aren't the prom queen anymore, since tools development is so wide open, built on the underlying open source OS'es and apps (and other tools). They have to cater to the real needs of the market. For which this huger, richer market will pay. But not anymore because they're just told to pay. Now the vendors have to ask, nicely, with gifts. Or they're as dead as they say the market is now.
Maybe you're right, but that would be telling, wouldn't it ;)?
I remember in the 1980s when game vendors started burning bad sectors into Atari 400/800 floppies on which they distributed their products. Their game's loader SW would try to read those sectors and abort if they weren't unreadable, thinking that pirates couldn't replicate them with just diskdup SW.
;) one bit (gotcha again >:P), but lots of honest people couldn't back up their games (which were sensitive to all kinds of transient EM, like paperclip collector magnets on desktops), and the vendors spent valuable time and money on worthless copy protection.
The Atari 810 floppy drive (the highest density storage available, like a 1TB HD is now, and the only game in town other than ridiculous tape drives, except for the extremely rare and stratospherically expensive 5MB Corvus HD) had a little potentiometer in its circuitboard controlling timing of the eletromagnetic signal waveform sent to the write head, that could be turned out of calibration to deliberately write a bad sector. So pirates would map the original's bad sector list, then copy the good sectors, then detune the pot, then write to the list of bad sectors - ruining them, then retune the pot and boot the copy.
Sure, that's pretty complex, voids the floppy warranty, and intimidates a lot of potential pirates. So instead, some people just stuck a disklabel to the edge of the target floppy, left the label sticking out of the drive, and grabbed that tab to jiggle the floppy while writing to each of the bad sectors - ruining them. Presto!
Besides, the pro pirates had the same mass floppy duplicators with the same programmable "write bad sector" circuitry that the original game vendors had, so the large, commercial pirates weren't fazed (pun intended
In fact, beating the copy protection was often more fun than the game. So around the world people were working to beat it, even if they never played the game again, but gave copies to friends just to show how ubergeek they were.
This cat & mouse game is in fact the exact model for all SW copy protection. It's become only a worse value waste for the SW producers, especially in content. They should use their only advantage, their earlier possession of the SW/content, to make big bucks at the first release, just like Hollywood does for movie premiere big weekends. Then let the pirates do their distribution work for free, and charge for support, customization, and subscriptions to upgrades. And build brands to sell their future releases.
Because "Don't Copy That Floppy" has been a losing battle, long before people would say "what's a floppy?"
So 90% of his congregation is involved in violent crimes (as perp or victim). Why doesn't he blame himself? He's the one responsible for protecting their souls. 90% is a high correlation. Maybe Rev. Patrick is the common factor that's responsible for these crimes.
At the very least, he's insulting god by saying that rappers and videogame devs are stronger than god. But maybe god just doesn't have nearly as good an agent in Rev. Patrick as does the devil.
You need to do that with the full expensive Sony SDK, and pay Sony the royalty with every copy sold. I think that and more conflicts with the GPL.
Why don't you write a diary about it on the Daily Kos blog? If well written (focused on your ID theft, mentioning your other problems only in actual connection with your crisis), it could get some proper attention. Perhaps at first only by other ID activists or people who might know tips for your recovery. Maybe by some journalists who could pressure your DA to act. Or perhaps only as more popular pressure that could force change in 2009, when the Democrats take over and replace your US Attorney (Federal prosecutor) and probably your regional FBI chiefs with a different staff, who might be less corporate and worthless to the people as the current Bush crew.
That doesn't prove he did it. He's just restoring a copy of her body from the journal.
Maybe the real story here is about a bizarre lab failure during experiments to back up his girlfriend, every geek's dream.
Because the LEDs would have to outshine 1.3KW:m^2 sunlight from 400Mm away. Which would require shipping all those tons of LEDs to the Moon and keeping them maintained. And which would suck power.
Instead, just leaving the logo as bare, shiny Moon surface, while the surface around it is blackened with solar collectors, costs nearly nothing to make, and is permanent.
Also, with the kind of energy a lunar solar base could generate, I don't know if the energy efficiency of a space elevator is necessary. But with all that power, why not build one, just for the awesomeness of it?
Multiple collectors aren't a big problem. Two at the poles would work. But for the benefit, there's no reason not to have a few dozen.
In fact, since the Moon gets about 1.3KW:m^2, a few thousand Km^2 collectors sending back only 10KW:m^2 beams to maybe a few thousand m^2 seaborne Earth receivers would have to send to multiple Earth receivers anyway. Otherwise the laser intensity could be too dangerous if it got repointed somehow, despite the return laser loop (doing some damage in the 1.35s it takes for a locking return laser to get back to the Moon transmitter).
Now get out there and supercompute!
Interesting point. I think the collectors could be charged to repel dust. Or just some of the ample power used to squeegee them once in a while.
Cover thousands of square Km with solar collectors, and laser the power back to Earth (at about 10KW:m^2) to a floating collector at sea, then over to my undersea grotto lair. Leave my logo carved out in the collector surface in bare moondust, so my power corp is advertised globally every night (well, about half the nights).
That is an outrageous story. Did you call the Kansas City Star to tell them about it?