Your math is completely correct if the meltwater magically remains salt-free once it's in the ocean. If you covered the salty ocean with saran wrap before melting the ice, then yes, the sea level would rise. In reality, if you mix the fresh meltwater with the salty ocean, you get an new, slightly less salty ocean...with a different density.
If you'd stop to think about it, you'd realize you can't have more water after a freeze-melt cycle than you did before.
A very few games are perhaps sufficiently fluent and emotionally sophisticated to qualify as art but those are so few as for games not to be recognisable as an artform.
That is true of every single artistic medium. With movies, music, painting, poems, etc., you are simply cherry-picking the ageless masterpieces and forgetting the massive flood of raw sewage they float on.
And some police reports may be filled out with great emotion by the officer. Many police reports will insite emotional responses in people.
You missed the bit about about art being a conveyance of emotion. An open grave may trigger an emotional reaction in a person, but that's not art, it's a hole in the ground. A photo of an open grave that can convey the photographer's emotions to an audience is art.
True, but what constitutes "art" is, itself, subjective. Not really.
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary) -If there is no emotion, it's not art. (a police log) -If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
Of course video games COULD be good art, but 99.999% are not
That's true for all forms of art.
You can write me off as a pretentious old dude who "doesn't get it," but I still say video games could be art but aren't yet. Where is the Ingmar Bergman, the Picasso, the Public Enemey? Sorry I just don't see it yet.
You hold the keys to open your eyes and unlock your mind. Nobody else can do that for you. Prejudice towards an entire artistic medium is not pretention, it's decrepitude.
How is software that one pays for inherently safer?
The price does not magically alter the safety, but the infrastructure required to collect and process payments does add some measure to the software's pedigree.
To implicitly trust software that's purchased shrinkwrapped in a Walmart is foolish, but it's certainly far, far, safer than the "Click Here Now!!" spams. It's not the price that conveys trust, but the investment the seller has made into the distribution chain.
IMHO, Echostar got what they deserved. It's a shame their customers may have to suffer for it, but that's the price of protecting the inventors.
Art. I, Sec. 8: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
There's little point in "protecting the inventors" when it hinders the progress of the useful arts. That's the price of stupidity.
A: Hi! I'd like to open a line of credit. B: What's your name. A: John Smith B: There are alot of John Smith's, could you be more specific? A: John Smith from New York, New York. B: Sigh. That doesn't really help. A: Well, how then? B: Give us a publicly known number that refers to you and you alone. A: My Social Security Number is 012-34-5678 B: Fine. Now I need to prove I'm actually talking to John Smith, 012-34-5678 A: How? B: Tell us a number that only you know and would never, ever, tell anyone else. A: My Social Security Number is 012-34-5678 B: Meh, I guess that's good enough. Have fun with your new credit card.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it's my experience that companies don't want to think of any of their employees as anythng but resources. That makes dealing with them so much easier - if you think of them as people, you might actually feel a little empathy or even guilt when you make them redundant just to make a small cost saving, or refuse bonuses and pay rises while the senior management award themselves both.
If I didn't trust my management to make the difficult decisions without getting "empathetic", then I'd walk out the door tommorow instead of waiting for my paychecks to start bouncing.
Companies exist to do business, not to get cuddly with the folks hanging around the office during the days. If HR sees me as nothing but a cog in a machine, to be maintained or replaced if needed, fine. I see them as clueless users that give me nightmares over security. Both estimates are honest, accurate, and efficient.
If your management can't stomach the thought of cutting loose that one guy who has "been with us since the beginning" but is costing an extra $20K/yr, do you really think they have the cojones to cut loose that one client who has "been with us since the beginning" but is costing an extra $20 million/yr.
A touchy-feely employer is nice if you are independently wealthy. Personally I'd prefer my company not be run over by competitors because the management is spineless.
Public schools should not use in school punishments for actions one takes outside of school. However, American school boards don't care much for the constitution.
You mean the Constitution written by folks accustomed to and accepting of corporal punishment for trivial schoolkid hijinks? The Founding Fathers would likely be quite surprised at the extreme leniency of modern schools.
Apparently this school board feels they have failed their task of instructing this student how not to be an ass. Not graduating this kid who is so woefully unprepared for the world is the least they can do. The student should be grateful the administration is exercising sufficient due diligence on his behalf instead of rubber-stamping his papers and turning him loose.
is there any good jobs with job security left anywhere at all ? Or has globalization eaten them all ?
"Job security" is just another insurance policy deducted from your wages. While you may not see the line-item on your pay stub, the cost is very real and very significant.
If getting paid what you are worth is important to you, accept that you can be replaced at whim. If you want job security, be prepared to work for half of your potential wages. "Job security" just means your employer is getting a great bargain and can afford to tolerate oversight and shiftlessness on your behalf.
Rephrase your question as "are there any high-yield, zero-risk investments left anywhere at all?" if you need a rational perspective. Globalization has nothing to do with what you seek.
Hypocrisy is the first thing that comes to mind here.
The closest physical manifestation of this situation is for a man to walk into a private meeting room such as a boardroom, then use the information he heard for personal gain.
Or someone wandering into a Lawyers office and listening in on a Lawyer-Client conversation and using that information against the client.
Its truly frightening that the US legal system supports such gross violation of privacy, so long as it is perpetrated by a company, not a person.
The benefits of privacy have always required a token effort of security and visitor screening. If you want privacy protection, it requires effort on your part. You can't just walk down the street with a shirt saying "I'm a private citizen, you can't look at me" and expect everyone to close their eyes. You need to make the effort to wear a mask, and not rely on everyone else to do your work for you.
The website owner made no efforts to maintain privacy; he relied purely on the visitors to screen themselves. This does not qualify for privacy protection.
This changes absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with contracts, but "public" vs "private." Basically, in order for something NOT to be considered "public" you must have meaningful screening.
In other words: If you give unrestricted, unscreened access to 99.99999% of the public, you can't discriminate against the remaining 0.00001%.
It's a pretty sensible ruling. Anything that is "Open to the Public" has to play by different rules.
Using a SSN is a nice easy and lazy way to do things, but ultimately a very stupid thing to do.
Having one guaranteed unique number so we can distinguish John Smith from John Smith without needing personal details is a very good thing. Accepting knowledge of a SSN as proof of identity is the problem.
Today, this is commonplace: "Please enter your name. To make sure you are really you, please enter your SSN". This provides the same level of security as "Please enter your name. To make sure you are really you, please spell your name."
Also, she's got a couple guys to help her incorporate grammer and spelling fixes for the books. If only the original designers would put so much thought into the little details...
For an encore, she's going to fix the grammar and spelling errors in Flowers_for_Algernon and The_Sound_and_the_Fury
Of course not, because the typical/. demographic understands that you can't apply laws and governance of the physical world to the virtual, technology world. So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.
If you are on the subway and the guy next to you leaves his newspaper behind, would you read it?
Is that pirating the newspaper's contents?
In this case the whole "printing content is different...with a book you get something tangible you can read as many times as you want, and that's part of the sale" argument dies. Newspapers are 100% content and 0% medium. What's the difference between reading a newspaper you didn't pay for and downloading a song you didn't purchase? Why is the first act harmless and the second criminal?
I agree 100%. Unfortunatly there is a whole subculture, usually amongst teenagers that think that all software and data should be free. Copyright infringement has been devalued in the popular media to the point where many people dont see the harm that it does. Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.
Actually, most sensible content creators deride the use of the term "theft" in this context. "Theft" draws invalid analogies to physical property that could cause far more problems for us than moralizing away copyright violations would solve. We certainly do not want to be required to track inventory (in a physical sense); that's just one of many concepts that shouldn't be applied here...like "theft/stealing" and "borrowing/sharing".
You'd still be charged $X but Google would be charged $N for no good reason.
That is already the case: try out the following.
Call up your local telco, introduce yourself as Joe Schmoe geek that wants a real connection. Call again as the CIO of Schmoe.com Inc. and order the exact same thing.
The difference is usually upwards of 5x the price, simply for being a company. The future you fear is already business as usual. Welcome to the real world.
A tiered internet would be the same as keeping the peasants out of libraries. It's a huge step *backwards*.
A tiered internet is like having a comprehensive main library where the foot traffic is high. The rural folk get a local branch library that still has full access to the main collection, but is slower at getting the data.
Such a discriminatory system is downright unfathomable...
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot about the salt.
Your math is completely correct if the meltwater magically remains salt-free once it's in the ocean. If you covered the salty ocean with saran wrap before melting the ice, then yes, the sea level would rise. In reality, if you mix the fresh meltwater with the salty ocean, you get an new, slightly less salty ocean...with a different density.
If you'd stop to think about it, you'd realize you can't have more water after a freeze-melt cycle than you did before.
A very few games are perhaps sufficiently fluent and emotionally sophisticated to qualify as art but those are so few as for games not to be recognisable as an artform.
That is true of every single artistic medium. With movies, music, painting, poems, etc., you are simply cherry-picking the ageless masterpieces and forgetting the massive flood of raw sewage they float on.
And some police reports may be filled out with great emotion by the officer. Many police reports will insite emotional responses in people.
You missed the bit about about art being a conveyance of emotion. An open grave may trigger an emotional reaction in a person, but that's not art, it's a hole in the ground. A photo of an open grave that can convey the photographer's emotions to an audience is art.
Art must instill emotion, not simply incite.
True, but what constitutes "art" is, itself, subjective.
Not really.
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary)
-If there is no emotion, it's not art. (a police log)
-If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
Of course video games COULD be good art, but 99.999% are not
That's true for all forms of art.
You can write me off as a pretentious old dude who "doesn't get it," but I still say video games could be art but aren't yet. Where is the Ingmar Bergman, the Picasso, the Public Enemey? Sorry I just don't see it yet.
You hold the keys to open your eyes and unlock your mind. Nobody else can do that for you. Prejudice towards an entire artistic medium is not pretention, it's decrepitude.
How is software that one pays for inherently safer?
The price does not magically alter the safety, but the infrastructure required to collect and process payments does add some measure to the software's pedigree.
To implicitly trust software that's purchased shrinkwrapped in a Walmart is foolish, but it's certainly far, far, safer than the "Click Here Now!!" spams. It's not the price that conveys trust, but the investment the seller has made into the distribution chain.
IMHO, Echostar got what they deserved. It's a shame their customers may have to suffer for it, but that's the price of protecting the inventors.
Art. I, Sec. 8:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
There's little point in "protecting the inventors" when it hinders the progress of the useful arts. That's the price of stupidity.
In a nutshell:
Those who are unwilling to employ violence will always be at the mercy of those who are.
Move Gandhi from 1940s India to 1940s France and see how well he fares.
The root of the problem:
A: Hi! I'd like to open a line of credit.
B: What's your name.
A: John Smith
B: There are alot of John Smith's, could you be more specific?
A: John Smith from New York, New York.
B: Sigh. That doesn't really help.
A: Well, how then?
B: Give us a publicly known number that refers to you and you alone.
A: My Social Security Number is 012-34-5678
B: Fine. Now I need to prove I'm actually talking to John Smith, 012-34-5678
A: How?
B: Tell us a number that only you know and would never, ever, tell anyone else.
A: My Social Security Number is 012-34-5678
B: Meh, I guess that's good enough. Have fun with your new credit card.
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it's my experience that companies don't want to think of any of their employees as anythng but resources. That makes dealing with them so much easier - if you think of them as people, you might actually feel a little empathy or even guilt when you make them redundant just to make a small cost saving, or refuse bonuses and pay rises while the senior management award themselves both.
If I didn't trust my management to make the difficult decisions without getting "empathetic", then I'd walk out the door tommorow instead of waiting for my paychecks to start bouncing.
Companies exist to do business, not to get cuddly with the folks hanging around the office during the days. If HR sees me as nothing but a cog in a machine, to be maintained or replaced if needed, fine. I see them as clueless users that give me nightmares over security. Both estimates are honest, accurate, and efficient.
If your management can't stomach the thought of cutting loose that one guy who has "been with us since the beginning" but is costing an extra $20K/yr, do you really think they have the cojones to cut loose that one client who has "been with us since the beginning" but is costing an extra $20 million/yr.
A touchy-feely employer is nice if you are independently wealthy. Personally I'd prefer my company not be run over by competitors because the management is spineless.
Public schools should not use in school punishments for actions one takes outside of school. However, American school boards don't care much for the constitution.
You mean the Constitution written by folks accustomed to and accepting of corporal punishment for trivial schoolkid hijinks? The Founding Fathers would likely be quite surprised at the extreme leniency of modern schools.
Apparently this school board feels they have failed their task of instructing this student how not to be an ass. Not graduating this kid who is so woefully unprepared for the world is the least they can do. The student should be grateful the administration is exercising sufficient due diligence on his behalf instead of rubber-stamping his papers and turning him loose.
is there any good jobs with job security left anywhere at all ? Or has globalization eaten them all ?
"Job security" is just another insurance policy deducted from your wages. While you may not see the line-item on your pay stub, the cost is very real and very significant.
If getting paid what you are worth is important to you, accept that you can be replaced at whim. If you want job security, be prepared to work for half of your potential wages. "Job security" just means your employer is getting a great bargain and can afford to tolerate oversight and shiftlessness on your behalf.
Rephrase your question as "are there any high-yield, zero-risk investments left anywhere at all?" if you need a rational perspective. Globalization has nothing to do with what you seek.
Hypocrisy is the first thing that comes to mind here.
The closest physical manifestation of this situation is for a man to walk into a private meeting room such as a boardroom, then use the information he heard for personal gain.
Or someone wandering into a Lawyers office and listening in on a Lawyer-Client conversation and using that information against the client.
Its truly frightening that the US legal system supports such gross violation of privacy, so long as it is perpetrated by a company, not a person.
The benefits of privacy have always required a token effort of security and visitor screening. If you want privacy protection, it requires effort on your part. You can't just walk down the street with a shirt saying "I'm a private citizen, you can't look at me" and expect everyone to close their eyes. You need to make the effort to wear a mask, and not rely on everyone else to do your work for you.
The website owner made no efforts to maintain privacy; he relied purely on the visitors to screen themselves. This does not qualify for privacy protection.
This changes absolutely nothing. This has nothing to do with contracts, but "public" vs "private." Basically, in order for something NOT to be considered "public" you must have meaningful screening.
In other words:
If you give unrestricted, unscreened access to 99.99999% of the public, you can't discriminate against the remaining 0.00001%.
It's a pretty sensible ruling. Anything that is "Open to the Public" has to play by different rules.
Using a SSN is a nice easy and lazy way to do things, but ultimately a very stupid thing to do.
Having one guaranteed unique number so we can distinguish John Smith from John Smith without needing personal details is a very good thing. Accepting knowledge of a SSN as proof of identity is the problem.
Today, this is commonplace: "Please enter your name. To make sure you are really you, please enter your SSN". This provides the same level of security as "Please enter your name. To make sure you are really you, please spell your name."
The Toronto Skydome beat them by 8 years.
The Romans beat you by almost 2000 years. The Flavian Amphitheater had a retractable roof.
How is "Fedora" a less wierd name than "Ubuntu"?
You can use "fedora" in a sentence and still appear to be speaking English.
Their reasons are purely profit, shareholder, and market driven. - nothing wrong with that though in my book.
I don't trust companies that claim to be motivated by anything else. Greed makes one predictable; predictability is the foundation of trust.
Rifle and Archery have the same technology-to-skill ratio as video games.
Video games even fit nicely with the Olympics history of being a competion in the martial arts...the latest metric of soldiering prowess.
Also, she's got a couple guys to help her incorporate grammer and spelling fixes for the books. If only the original designers would put so much thought into the little details...
For an encore, she's going to fix the grammar and spelling errors in Flowers_for_Algernon and The_Sound_and_the_Fury
Of course not, because the typical /. demographic understands that you can't apply laws and governance of the physical world to the virtual, technology world. So perhaps it is not THEFT in the traditional sense, but it is THEFT in the "I'm taking something that I'm not authorized to take" sense.
If you are on the subway and the guy next to you leaves his newspaper behind, would you read it?
Is that pirating the newspaper's contents?
In this case the whole "printing content is different...with a book you get something tangible you can read as many times as you want, and that's part of the sale" argument dies. Newspapers are 100% content and 0% medium. What's the difference between reading a newspaper you didn't pay for and downloading a song you didn't purchase? Why is the first act harmless and the second criminal?
I agree 100%. Unfortunatly there is a whole subculture, usually amongst teenagers that think that all software and data should be free. Copyright infringement has been devalued in the popular media to the point where many people dont see the harm that it does. Invariably those who churn out the 'copright violation isnt theft' bull dont actually rely on making digital content for a living, or are clueless about how the market system works in their industry.
Actually, most sensible content creators deride the use of the term "theft" in this context. "Theft" draws invalid analogies to physical property that could cause far more problems for us than moralizing away copyright violations would solve. We certainly do not want to be required to track inventory (in a physical sense); that's just one of many concepts that shouldn't be applied here...like "theft/stealing" and "borrowing/sharing".
You'd still be charged $X but Google would be charged $N for no good reason.
That is already the case: try out the following.
Call up your local telco, introduce yourself as Joe Schmoe geek that wants a real connection. Call again as the CIO of Schmoe.com Inc. and order the exact same thing.
The difference is usually upwards of 5x the price, simply for being a company. The future you fear is already business as usual. Welcome to the real world.
A tiered internet would be the same as keeping the peasants out of libraries. It's a huge step *backwards*.
A tiered internet is like having a comprehensive main library where the foot traffic is high. The rural folk get a local branch library that still has full access to the main collection, but is slower at getting the data.
Such a discriminatory system is downright unfathomable...
It is illegal to attach a vending machine to a utility pole without prior consent from the utility company.
I fail to see why this law is so hilariously ridiculous.