Even North Korea can't stop piracy. Because sharing content is the natural thing to do. Sharing is what turns content into culture. So what makes Hollywood bosses think they can stop it? Or more importantly, how far are they willing to go to stop it? Because even North Korea obviously doesn't go far enough.
I have no doubts that based on the evidence that we see *now*, that evolution appears to be the correct way that life came to being.
Evolution has nothing to do with life coming to being. Evolution starts right AFTER life came to being.
I realize this is fanciful, and the odds are really high that this didn't happen, but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?
So? Even if we entertain the ridiculously improbable possibility that the entire universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago along with physical evidence suggesting nearly 14 billion years of history, the only impact on evolution will be that it's been going on for 6,000 years instead of 3.5 billion years. You can still watch evolution happen right in front of your own eyes. Given what we know about DNA and biological reproduction, how could evolution NOT work?
Yes, new artists CAN do that. Financing your own music production is not a problem. Getting around recording industry is. Recording industry isn't profiting heavily from financing music production. They're profiting from their position as mass media gatekeepers. If you as a musician want to get on TV or big radio stations, you either sign up to them and become a star almost overnight, or you don't get there at all and stay practically unknown for a very long time. The Internet has undermined the gatekeeper position of recording industry but the change is coming very slowly.
I don't see anything stupid in my post. Intentionally absurd, perhaps, but not stupid. So would you care to point out what you consider stupid in my post so I can explain why it's not?
There are some things people are willing to die for, so obviously no penalty will dissuade them. In every other instance, there is a penalty which will do so.
If you really believe that death penalty would deter everybody except religious and political martyrs from copying, you're completely wrong. The same thing repeated about two centuries later again in France, this time with fabric patterns. Surely, nobody would risk their lives for a piece of colored cloth, would they? Well, actually, a whole lot of people did and were executed for it.
People don't stop doing harmless activities just because they're forbidden by law under harsh penalty. They just take better care not to get caught. Let's make a little experiment: What kind of penalty would dissuade you from using your legs to walk and make you handwalk all the time, even when nobody's around?
And then you go play Minesweeper because there's nothing else you can do unless you spend another 2 days juggling installation CDs for third party software, clicking "Next" for hours. You see, when you're connected to the net through a fat pipe, you can install fully functional and up-to-date desktop Linux system in less time than it would take you to clone a fully functional Windows installation from one disk to another. The last time I was installing Linux on a new machine, I spent about 10 minutes configuring the basic stuff like hostname and keyboard layout, then I just took a list of installed packages from another machine, fed it to the package manager and went out for a few hours. When I came back, the system was ready for use. I don't know how much you enjoy clicking "Next" but I certainly don't.
In 1535, France enacted death penalty for operating a printing press. Guess what: It. Didn't. Work. How far do you want to take this copyright madness before you realize absurd how absurd it is?
Let me put it this way: If unauthorized copying of content were a serious threat to the ability of creators to make a living, there would be no copyright industry around to make fuss about it by now. The recording industry would have gone bankrupt about 10 years ago and the movie industry would have died about 5 years ago. Since they're both still here despite all their effort to go bankrupt by actively screwing their paying customers over, and the most pirated movies break one box office record after another, unauthorized copying is not a problem. Quite the opposite.
What may or may not be in question is how much of an impact we're actually having on it, and how much of it is a natural trend.
This question is really simple to answer. Troposphere is getting warmer while stratosphere is getting colder. That means troposphere is absorbing energy radiated from surface even before it reaches upper levels of atmosphere (a.k.a. greenhouse effect). And this is not the only evidence pointing at the culprit. There are satellites in orbit measuring the spectrum of energy radiated from Earth. Those measurements clearly show that energy radiation in wavelength ranges absorbed by CO2 is decreasing. Do I need to say more?
And if you factor in a decent ROI that investors will require, I see a lot of ideas never making it to market or even developed because there's very little hope of reouping investment let alone making a return.
With the exception of pharmaceuticals where the vast majority of development cost comes from the necessity of clinical trials to ensure patient safety, most ideas are nothing more than small iterative improvements on older ideas. We don't need huge multinational corporations blowing billions of dollars on R&D to make innovation happen. Shotgun approach (thousands of startups adding small and cheap improvements on top of the same basic idea) works just fine. But you can't have shotgun approach working next to huge multinational corporations owning nuclear patent portfolios. When you place both side by side, the only thing you get is huge multinational corporations dropping the lawsuit nuke on startups.
Positive bias works a little differently than you think. First, a few definitions. Positive result looks like this: "We tried X on Y and it works." Negative result looks like this: "We tried X on Y and it doesn't work." Which one looks more interesting? That's right, the positive one. Now remember that outside mathematics, science is stuck with probabilities. There's always a very small chance of false positives (and also false negatives, but those are less of a problem).
So let's suppose that we have an experiment which should come out negative with 99% certainty. There's 1% chance of false positive. Now let's have 100 scientists independently perform the experiment. Chances are that 1 scientist will get a false positive. This scientist will then publish a paper while the other 99 will give up and research something else without publishing because of the impression that negative results are not interesting.
This is how positive bias works. Those 99 negative outcomes need to be reported to show that the one false positive is a false positive but they aren't reported. It's not some kind of intentional fraud but merely a consequence of overt obsession with original and sensational results dictated by those who pay for research. It doesn't matter what the research actually means, only that it can be phrased as "We tried X on Y and it works."
All of those questions only make sense when your goal is to preserve the entertainment industry in its current state. I don't see the point of preserving something that has outlived its usefulness. So the real question is this: Is it possible to make a decent living from creating music, movies, video game etc. without making non-profit copying illegal? The answer to that question is a deafening YES. So if the entertainment industry can't keep up with the times, here's the world's smallest violin playing just for them.
Something was taken. The income that would have otherwise been realized from a legitimate purchase.
So if I bake my own bread using the same recipe as the bakery in my neighborhood, I'm stealing from the bakery? Sorry, no. Something can be stolen only if it's material and you had it in the first place. Things you might get in fantasy parallel universe don't count.
Better AI addressing those cliches isn't really THAT hard. Pretty much all you need to do is assign some difficulty score to equipped weapons and armor and have the NPC reactions vary accordingly. When the player's equipment score is low, NPCs go "I'm gonna kill you sucker!" On the other hand when the equipment score is high, NPCs go "I'm gonna kill you su... Oh crap. I'm outta here!" That's not so hard, is it?
Gema is not a copyright holder. It's a German royalty collection company. Unfortunately, German government was stupid enough to give these thugs power over all music streaming over the Internet in Germany.
Not really. The C Programming Language is really good. It's very straightforward, it tells you everything you need to know about each feature of the language and it doesn't confuse the reader by hiding important details until later. It's much easier to understand than those fancy books that try to be smart about what they tell you right away and what they try to hide because the writer thinks you might be too dumb to understand it.
Wow. Interesting thoughts. So what time machine did you arrive into the 21st century on? How did you manage to get a hike on a time machine in 1780?
While serfdom was abolished as a legal concept, it doesn't follow that people are no longer treated as such by those who have enough power to get away with it.
I always thought that one of the necessary parts of being adult is recognizing one's own limited power and ability. In this sense, it's Europe that is more mature because people in Europe don't delude themselves into thinking they're being treated as equals when they're really being used as nothing more than expendable serfs by the rich and powerful.
I tend to think the corruption is widespread, but not 100%.
All right then, where are all those not corrupted climate scientists? And remember we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world. There should be at least a few thousand climate scientists out there with real data that proves mainstream climate science is wrong. Where are they? And just to be clear, I want to see peer-reviewed articles from actual climate scientists, not blog or news articles from researchers from completely unrelated scientific fields or even industry lobbyists, politicians or journalists.
My second thought is "Hmmm, academics/scientists skewing results for the sake of their own careers. Global warming, anyone?"
Your second thought is completely off because every single time someone actually tried to replicate global warming research, they DID get the same results. Unlike in the case of those medical papers TFA is about.
Slashdot Mirror
Even North Korea can't stop piracy. Because sharing content is the natural thing to do. Sharing is what turns content into culture. So what makes Hollywood bosses think they can stop it? Or more importantly, how far are they willing to go to stop it? Because even North Korea obviously doesn't go far enough.
I have no doubts that based on the evidence that we see *now*, that evolution appears to be the correct way that life came to being.
Evolution has nothing to do with life coming to being. Evolution starts right AFTER life came to being.
I realize this is fanciful, and the odds are really high that this didn't happen, but who is to say that six thousand years ago something didn't just pop everything into existence fully formed, *including* all of the evidence?
So? Even if we entertain the ridiculously improbable possibility that the entire universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago along with physical evidence suggesting nearly 14 billion years of history, the only impact on evolution will be that it's been going on for 6,000 years instead of 3.5 billion years. You can still watch evolution happen right in front of your own eyes. Given what we know about DNA and biological reproduction, how could evolution NOT work?
Yes, new artists CAN do that. Financing your own music production is not a problem. Getting around recording industry is. Recording industry isn't profiting heavily from financing music production. They're profiting from their position as mass media gatekeepers. If you as a musician want to get on TV or big radio stations, you either sign up to them and become a star almost overnight, or you don't get there at all and stay practically unknown for a very long time. The Internet has undermined the gatekeeper position of recording industry but the change is coming very slowly.
I don't see anything stupid in my post. Intentionally absurd, perhaps, but not stupid. So would you care to point out what you consider stupid in my post so I can explain why it's not?
Well first of all, your link has nothing to do with copyright; it was a censorship law.
Actually, it has everything to do with copyright. Copyright started as a censorship law in the first place.
There are some things people are willing to die for, so obviously no penalty will dissuade them. In every other instance, there is a penalty which will do so.
If you really believe that death penalty would deter everybody except religious and political martyrs from copying, you're completely wrong. The same thing repeated about two centuries later again in France, this time with fabric patterns. Surely, nobody would risk their lives for a piece of colored cloth, would they? Well, actually, a whole lot of people did and were executed for it.
People don't stop doing harmless activities just because they're forbidden by law under harsh penalty. They just take better care not to get caught. Let's make a little experiment: What kind of penalty would dissuade you from using your legs to walk and make you handwalk all the time, even when nobody's around?
And then you go play Minesweeper because there's nothing else you can do unless you spend another 2 days juggling installation CDs for third party software, clicking "Next" for hours. You see, when you're connected to the net through a fat pipe, you can install fully functional and up-to-date desktop Linux system in less time than it would take you to clone a fully functional Windows installation from one disk to another. The last time I was installing Linux on a new machine, I spent about 10 minutes configuring the basic stuff like hostname and keyboard layout, then I just took a list of installed packages from another machine, fed it to the package manager and went out for a few hours. When I came back, the system was ready for use. I don't know how much you enjoy clicking "Next" but I certainly don't.
In 1535, France enacted death penalty for operating a printing press. Guess what: It. Didn't. Work. How far do you want to take this copyright madness before you realize absurd how absurd it is?
Let me put it this way: If unauthorized copying of content were a serious threat to the ability of creators to make a living, there would be no copyright industry around to make fuss about it by now. The recording industry would have gone bankrupt about 10 years ago and the movie industry would have died about 5 years ago. Since they're both still here despite all their effort to go bankrupt by actively screwing their paying customers over, and the most pirated movies break one box office record after another, unauthorized copying is not a problem. Quite the opposite.
What may or may not be in question is how much of an impact we're actually having on it, and how much of it is a natural trend.
This question is really simple to answer. Troposphere is getting warmer while stratosphere is getting colder. That means troposphere is absorbing energy radiated from surface even before it reaches upper levels of atmosphere (a.k.a. greenhouse effect). And this is not the only evidence pointing at the culprit. There are satellites in orbit measuring the spectrum of energy radiated from Earth. Those measurements clearly show that energy radiation in wavelength ranges absorbed by CO2 is decreasing. Do I need to say more?
And if you factor in a decent ROI that investors will require, I see a lot of ideas never making it to market or even developed because there's very little hope of reouping investment let alone making a return.
With the exception of pharmaceuticals where the vast majority of development cost comes from the necessity of clinical trials to ensure patient safety, most ideas are nothing more than small iterative improvements on older ideas. We don't need huge multinational corporations blowing billions of dollars on R&D to make innovation happen. Shotgun approach (thousands of startups adding small and cheap improvements on top of the same basic idea) works just fine. But you can't have shotgun approach working next to huge multinational corporations owning nuclear patent portfolios. When you place both side by side, the only thing you get is huge multinational corporations dropping the lawsuit nuke on startups.
Positive bias works a little differently than you think. First, a few definitions. Positive result looks like this: "We tried X on Y and it works." Negative result looks like this: "We tried X on Y and it doesn't work." Which one looks more interesting? That's right, the positive one. Now remember that outside mathematics, science is stuck with probabilities. There's always a very small chance of false positives (and also false negatives, but those are less of a problem).
So let's suppose that we have an experiment which should come out negative with 99% certainty. There's 1% chance of false positive. Now let's have 100 scientists independently perform the experiment. Chances are that 1 scientist will get a false positive. This scientist will then publish a paper while the other 99 will give up and research something else without publishing because of the impression that negative results are not interesting.
This is how positive bias works. Those 99 negative outcomes need to be reported to show that the one false positive is a false positive but they aren't reported. It's not some kind of intentional fraud but merely a consequence of overt obsession with original and sensational results dictated by those who pay for research. It doesn't matter what the research actually means, only that it can be phrased as "We tried X on Y and it works."
All of those questions only make sense when your goal is to preserve the entertainment industry in its current state. I don't see the point of preserving something that has outlived its usefulness. So the real question is this: Is it possible to make a decent living from creating music, movies, video game etc. without making non-profit copying illegal? The answer to that question is a deafening YES. So if the entertainment industry can't keep up with the times, here's the world's smallest violin playing just for them.
Something was taken. The income that would have otherwise been realized from a legitimate purchase.
So if I bake my own bread using the same recipe as the bakery in my neighborhood, I'm stealing from the bakery? Sorry, no. Something can be stolen only if it's material and you had it in the first place. Things you might get in fantasy parallel universe don't count.
While the leader monkeys in EU aren't completely insane on their own, the same old "monkey sees, monkey does" still applies to them, though.
Better AI addressing those cliches isn't really THAT hard. Pretty much all you need to do is assign some difficulty score to equipped weapons and armor and have the NPC reactions vary accordingly. When the player's equipment score is low, NPCs go "I'm gonna kill you sucker!" On the other hand when the equipment score is high, NPCs go "I'm gonna kill you su... Oh crap. I'm outta here!" That's not so hard, is it?
There are and these thugs are exempt by another law.
Gema is not a copyright holder. It's a German royalty collection company. Unfortunately, German government was stupid enough to give these thugs power over all music streaming over the Internet in Germany.
Congratulations, you've just failed the Turing test.
Not really. The C Programming Language is really good. It's very straightforward, it tells you everything you need to know about each feature of the language and it doesn't confuse the reader by hiding important details until later. It's much easier to understand than those fancy books that try to be smart about what they tell you right away and what they try to hide because the writer thinks you might be too dumb to understand it.
Which is SOOOOO important to a complete beginner...
Wow. Interesting thoughts. So what time machine did you arrive into the 21st century on? How did you manage to get a hike on a time machine in 1780?
While serfdom was abolished as a legal concept, it doesn't follow that people are no longer treated as such by those who have enough power to get away with it.
I prefer the government treat me as an adult.
I always thought that one of the necessary parts of being adult is recognizing one's own limited power and ability. In this sense, it's Europe that is more mature because people in Europe don't delude themselves into thinking they're being treated as equals when they're really being used as nothing more than expendable serfs by the rich and powerful.
While research itself is exempt from patent monopoly, the monopoly still precludes wide application for anything useful for 20 years.
I tend to think the corruption is widespread, but not 100%.
All right then, where are all those not corrupted climate scientists? And remember we're talking about hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world. There should be at least a few thousand climate scientists out there with real data that proves mainstream climate science is wrong. Where are they? And just to be clear, I want to see peer-reviewed articles from actual climate scientists, not blog or news articles from researchers from completely unrelated scientific fields or even industry lobbyists, politicians or journalists.
My second thought is "Hmmm, academics/scientists skewing results for the sake of their own careers. Global warming, anyone?"
Your second thought is completely off because every single time someone actually tried to replicate global warming research, they DID get the same results. Unlike in the case of those medical papers TFA is about.