I would rather not be in a cold war at all, given the option, and I suspect that the majority of the citizens of the world felt that way as well, at least when people actually think about how it affects their lives.
Actually, the Russians are pretty much the ones that won WWII, although we did reduce the damage on the Western front, which would admittedly be relevant to the UK standard of living.
Bullet hell has been around for a while, there were tons of games that were hard because they were broken, and 'Nintendo hard' is older than dirt, and variations that are nigh impossible for human players have been popular for years (think Kazio Mario). 'Masocore' is not an emerging genre.
Except that killing off people with a disease tends to make people who have the disease a good bit quieter about it, which is harmful to eradication. If you want to throw down blame, it would be those that didn't do anything to stop it because it was a disease that seemed to only affect socially undesirably groups.
There are also neurons in the rest of the body. Assuming these are replacement limbs instead of supplementary limbs, why wouldn't they intercae with the neurons the body was previously using to do those communications, e.g., control a replacement hand by connecting it to the neurons in the wrist?
Is it? It's probably more competitive than the ISP market, but it seems like there are mostly just a few consolidated companies that handle most everything.
Jobs might have picked up the posture on account of being a buddhist. I associate "sitting cross-legged on the floor" with the band Chicago from their song "25 or 6 to 4."
Unfortunately for the Vatican, humans are humans, and fighting biology is not all that effective. The Vatican provided a great theoretical solution that doesn't play out that well in reality as practical advice.
The claim of copyright is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not the actions are disputed. That they typically source the material doesn't mean that they are infringing. It's a common courtesy, standard practice for those kinds of organizations, and an extra step to cover their ass. Also, a decent portion of the time, the source is something ultimately owned by the same company, in which case they would want to advertise and also reinforce the notion of those ridiculous copyright claims.
I think in regards to music sampling, it's more an issue of an incompetent/corrupt judge than what a proper reading of the law and case law would return. Bridgeport is a troll with someone dubious claims to the copyrights they sued over. At the very least, they obtained the rights by confusing George Clinton.
Bridgeport is a weird precedent to be using, especially outside of the context of music sampling. Since the UK has at least semi-functional news programmes, I highly doubt that this would apply here.
No, I'm the kind of person who thinks that something like this is nigh impossible to run a system like this in a way that isn't a net harm, and that other mechanisms for dealing with these kinds of problems will have greater success. I'm not saying that it'll completely solve the issue, but that it will get better results. Sitting on your hands and wishing would also return better results.
No, the update would be at the top, altered to have the later knowledge with a note at the bottom, or printed in the next update. You know, the kind of thing respectable newspapers already have as standard practice for a century or two.
Why do you think that unskilled labor is a net loss? America was largely built on the cheap labor of immigrants who eventually became part of the culture.
It's either going to be a rare or common occurrence. If it's rare, then it's not really any worse than not hiring you because you prefer a different sports team or whatever stupid reason they have. If it's common, then it would be something happening enough to get some decent data.
If someone is wrongfully accused, then the most appropriate solution would be to publish an update stating such to the original article. If you want to require THAT, I have far less qualms with it than hiding the results.
And when you have idiotic laws like our sex offender laws where you pee in public you are on the list and everyone who sees your name there thinks you had sex with some little kid.
Then perhaps we should fix the idiotic laws instead of creating more idiotic laws.
Or, we could solve the problem at the root instead of using soft censorship and claiming it's not censorship because the information is still there, just really hard to see. We have better documentation of our lives than previous generations. That means that we have more dirty laundry that can be found. How about we just become more tolerant people and call out people who are not being tolerant people instead of trying to fight the realities of the spread of information . If someone doesn't get a job because they stole a candy bar 10 years ago, organize a boycott of that company for being such petty dicks.
Also, the practice of brand management is exactly the kind of thing we should scared of. Blackwater does awful shit, and changes their name every couple of years so we don't point to the same evil bastards again and again.
Re:will not stop repeating the obvious
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
If you could reliably keep something secret indefinitely while practicing it, you'd be a fool to seek a patent on it. I wish people would quit repeating the ridiculous myth that patents somehow reduce trade secrets in any beneficial way.
Re:And this is the same for copyrights.
on
Patents That Kill
·
· Score: 1
Life based copyright is totally stupid. It is far less reliable for all parties involved. If we are going to have copyright, it should just be X years. That way the same amount of protection is given for a work that is written in high school as a work that is written on a deathbed.
Also, you can't 'punish' authors in this context since they are not inherently owed anything at all. The problem would be that it disproportionately rewards certain authors.
I think one of the biggest issues with eugenics is that most of those that have gone down that path have been stuck in the idea of seeking perfection, when the ideal is actually diversity. Humans are in charge of this rock uncontested because we have different people doing different jobs. Likewise, in the case of disease or changing environments, there are big advantages to diversity. Again, we are one of very few species that can live on every continent on the planet. The lack of diversity is also a big concern in regards to our food supply.
Slashdot Mirror
I would rather not be in a cold war at all, given the option, and I suspect that the majority of the citizens of the world felt that way as well, at least when people actually think about how it affects their lives.
Actually, the Russians are pretty much the ones that won WWII, although we did reduce the damage on the Western front, which would admittedly be relevant to the UK standard of living.
Where did they get the 2D atoms from?
Bullet hell has been around for a while, there were tons of games that were hard because they were broken, and 'Nintendo hard' is older than dirt, and variations that are nigh impossible for human players have been popular for years (think Kazio Mario). 'Masocore' is not an emerging genre.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Except that killing off people with a disease tends to make people who have the disease a good bit quieter about it, which is harmful to eradication. If you want to throw down blame, it would be those that didn't do anything to stop it because it was a disease that seemed to only affect socially undesirably groups.
There are also neurons in the rest of the body. Assuming these are replacement limbs instead of supplementary limbs, why wouldn't they intercae with the neurons the body was previously using to do those communications, e.g., control a replacement hand by connecting it to the neurons in the wrist?
Is it? It's probably more competitive than the ISP market, but it seems like there are mostly just a few consolidated companies that handle most everything.
It's almost as if the UI is changing on different platforms in accordance with current popular design trends...
Jobs might have picked up the posture on account of being a buddhist. I associate "sitting cross-legged on the floor" with the band Chicago from their song "25 or 6 to 4."
Unfortunately for the Vatican, humans are humans, and fighting biology is not all that effective. The Vatican provided a great theoretical solution that doesn't play out that well in reality as practical advice.
The claim of copyright is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not the actions are disputed. That they typically source the material doesn't mean that they are infringing. It's a common courtesy, standard practice for those kinds of organizations, and an extra step to cover their ass. Also, a decent portion of the time, the source is something ultimately owned by the same company, in which case they would want to advertise and also reinforce the notion of those ridiculous copyright claims.
I think in regards to music sampling, it's more an issue of an incompetent/corrupt judge than what a proper reading of the law and case law would return. Bridgeport is a troll with someone dubious claims to the copyrights they sued over. At the very least, they obtained the rights by confusing George Clinton.
Bridgeport is a weird precedent to be using, especially outside of the context of music sampling. Since the UK has at least semi-functional news programmes, I highly doubt that this would apply here.
No, I'm the kind of person who thinks that something like this is nigh impossible to run a system like this in a way that isn't a net harm, and that other mechanisms for dealing with these kinds of problems will have greater success. I'm not saying that it'll completely solve the issue, but that it will get better results. Sitting on your hands and wishing would also return better results.
No, the update would be at the top, altered to have the later knowledge with a note at the bottom, or printed in the next update. You know, the kind of thing respectable newspapers already have as standard practice for a century or two.
I assume this is merely a pretense for searching anybody at will, just like the dogs this is replacing.
Why do you think that unskilled labor is a net loss? America was largely built on the cheap labor of immigrants who eventually became part of the culture.
Or it's an amalgamation considered more reliable than any one news source.
It's either going to be a rare or common occurrence. If it's rare, then it's not really any worse than not hiring you because you prefer a different sports team or whatever stupid reason they have. If it's common, then it would be something happening enough to get some decent data.
Then perhaps we should fix the idiotic laws instead of creating more idiotic laws.
Or, we could solve the problem at the root instead of using soft censorship and claiming it's not censorship because the information is still there, just really hard to see. We have better documentation of our lives than previous generations. That means that we have more dirty laundry that can be found. How about we just become more tolerant people and call out people who are not being tolerant people instead of trying to fight the realities of the spread of information . If someone doesn't get a job because they stole a candy bar 10 years ago, organize a boycott of that company for being such petty dicks.
Also, the practice of brand management is exactly the kind of thing we should scared of. Blackwater does awful shit, and changes their name every couple of years so we don't point to the same evil bastards again and again.
If you could reliably keep something secret indefinitely while practicing it, you'd be a fool to seek a patent on it. I wish people would quit repeating the ridiculous myth that patents somehow reduce trade secrets in any beneficial way.
Life based copyright is totally stupid. It is far less reliable for all parties involved. If we are going to have copyright, it should just be X years. That way the same amount of protection is given for a work that is written in high school as a work that is written on a deathbed.
Also, you can't 'punish' authors in this context since they are not inherently owed anything at all. The problem would be that it disproportionately rewards certain authors.
I think one of the biggest issues with eugenics is that most of those that have gone down that path have been stuck in the idea of seeking perfection, when the ideal is actually diversity. Humans are in charge of this rock uncontested because we have different people doing different jobs. Likewise, in the case of disease or changing environments, there are big advantages to diversity. Again, we are one of very few species that can live on every continent on the planet. The lack of diversity is also a big concern in regards to our food supply.