No, it doesn't. There is study after study showing that piracy leads to an increase in sales. You can't look at sales today and a decade ago and blame the increase on piracy, given all the other factors that have happened, i.e. the economy. Correlation is not causation my friend.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that piracy leads to an increase in sales. It doesn't make sense to dispute that anymore.
Given that taking copies doesn't cost anyone anything nor deprive anything from anyone, yet can lead to further contributions to society, it only makes sense.
Instead of being greedy and focusing on piracy which is ultimately a good thing which is also inevitable, why not focus on healthcare or something useful?
Rights are not about what you need to survive, but about quality of life. In this modern age why would unrestricted internet access not be a basic right?
A gun is dangerous weapon and there is a good argument for limiting and tracking their issue with a license. What is the argument for needing a license to own a TV?
Hi, I am very interested. I certainly don't know much about physics but was taking the view that it is just as silly to dismiss the possibility of FTL as it was for people to dismiss airplanes or spaceships. I figured it was somewhat more complex than that, so thankyou for explaining about maxwell's equations. Now, why would something being FTL break maxwell's equations? Could there be no other equations which work and take FTL speeds into account?
Because we really don't know enough to say for certain. We don't even know how gravity works. Why is it so hard to think that something could travel faster than light? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But we should also stop assuming that the theory of relativity is more reliable than it is or that our knowledge is anything other than incomplete and premature. I think it is only a matter of time until we something that can exceed C.
No, forget about tools like PCWizard. The slowness you refer to is likely to be caused by hard drive fragmentation, all sorts of adware and malware running in the background and various other issues, none of which are related to the registry.
The registry replaces INF files, and the time to search it is infinitesimal. It really doesn't matter how many irrelivant entries are added, as it does not impact the lookup time for the relevant entries. For that to happen the registry would have to increase in size due X amount of rubbish entries, with X being a number so high it is impractical.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Dead registry entries don't cause Windows to be slower, for example. That software is unnecessary and won't make any significant difference.
You may have a point, but it seems antiquated to have a law system where there are lords of any sort. Esp A house of Lords being superior to a House of Commons.
Not to mention the lack of any kind of advanced access controls or mandatory access controls, or even auditing. OpenBSD has a very, very narrow definition of security and good advertising to hide the fact.
Okay, first off, to start at the end: your article about "picking apart some of the so called science in Avatar" begins with "Fortunately, James Cameron has a knack for science that rivals his moviemaking skills."? And did you read the section he added near the end after reading reader comments? He retracted most of his (already limited) criticisms to boot!
He didn't retract his criticisms, he found explanations that make them somewhat more plausible. That's quite a different thing, however it is exactly that you can do with Firefly, which is why both are equally hard sci-fi.
Come on, why not just give it up and accept that it's hard sci-fi and Firefly isn't?
Because it isn't true. You have simply considered some things as more plausible than others, and are choosing to ignoring the liberties taken that reduce the scientific accuracy of Avatar, while paying special attention to the liberties Firefly takes. Both are as hard as each other because both are based on science and on things which are plausible, regardless of how likely they may be.
It's not baseless at all. It's incredibly common even on Earth, let alone on a planet with a fully independent line of evolution. We have countless leg combinations. And even if you only want to count macroscopic animals (BTW: on a lower-gravity body like Pandora, the boundary for "macroscopic" becomes much larger), we have quadrapeds, bipeds (including all birds), some rare tripeds (kangaroos engage in tripedal movement at certain gaits), and animals with no legs, which is equivalent in locomotion to having an infinite number of infinitely small legs. At various times in Earth's history, animals with many legs *have* been the largest or among the largest species alive. For example, Jaekelopterus rhenaniae or Arthropleura
Sorry, but it is baseless. There is a reason that animals as large as tigers and elephants are not six legged. There is also good reason why it tends to be insects and such that have more than 4 legs. On Avatar it seems they simply wanted to make something alien, without giving though to why they would look that way. Comparing insects on earth and saying since small animals have many legs than large animals can have many legs doesn't cut it. There is a reason why large animals don't have many legs and it was not explained sufficiently in movie or in a discussion about the movie why that would not be true on Pandora.
Are you kidding? On Earth we've come up with all sorts of absurdly complex, incredibly limited ways to try to communicate with each other (including between species, and even between life of different kingdoms -- let me tell you, a plant making its fruit turn bright colors and smell nice when the seeds inside are developed isn't just a coincidence).... and you're seriously trying to claim that on a planet that has a natural *planetwide superconducting network on it*, lifeforms wouldn't be at a massive evolutionary disadvantage to not be tapped into it? To reiterate, all tapped into that *same network*, *together*? The equivalent on Earth would be if sound on Earth carried for hundreds or thousands of miles and to make and to hear a sound, all species must use roughly the same frequency band. You really think that's not some *huge* evolutionary pressure toward long-range interspecies communication?
You're missing the point. It's overly complex, and kind of goes against the whole survival of the fittest thing. Animals in near species may have such a thing and be compatible, but what reason would a predator have to interlink with prey from a very removed species? Simply because we have a complex ecosystem with many interesting ways for animals and plants to communicate, that is no argument for an ecosystem having one huge network. Our ecosystem is a system of tiny networks...one huge universal network is much harder to explain.
The problem with the four legged animals as big as tigers and elephants and such is that it seems baseless. What would be the selective pressure that resulted in that. Or was it just because it looked pretty? As for the navi being interfered with, it doesn't matter the reason, it just matters that it is no longer hard sci-fi as you called it.
I haven't seen the movie since it came out but I don't recall there being any hard sci-fi reason that would explain all organisms having a way to interconnect. The compatibility between all organisims is overly complex and far fetched, and it's hard to think of any plausible reason why that would have come about (based on what I remember).
Terraforming is entirely plausible. Not sure why you classify it as borderline fantasy. There are many things that are plausible and we understand how to do but can't currently do. That doesn't make them borderline fantasy.
Not sure what you mean by "terraforming gravity"...I don't see why they couldnt have only terraformed planets that had gravity similar to earth in the first place.
Avatar had artificial gravity, so I guess that is another strike for it being hard sci-fi. Anyway, I disagree that it is that far-fetched or would require absurd amounts of energy to create it. We don't even fully understand gravity yet...who is to say once it is better understood it cannot be more easily manipulated?
In Avatar, when they are all standing on their ship and not floating, I would say that is the result of artificial gravity. Play with semantics all you like but as stuff was not floating away, they obviously had some sort of artificial gravity.
IN Firefly the conversations were normally with ships in the same area. In the movie when they talk to Mr Universe we don't know how far away he is.
I liked both movies, I just find it funny when people like to say one work of sci-fi is hard and one is not, when both containing things which are far fetched, both contains things we know are not true or unlikely and both contain things which are completely plausible.
this article does a good job of picking apart some of the so called science in Avatar.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. There is study after study showing that piracy leads to an increase in sales. You can't look at sales today and a decade ago and blame the increase on piracy, given all the other factors that have happened, i.e. the economy. Correlation is not causation my friend.
Given that taking copies doesn't cost anyone anything nor deprive anything from anyone, yet can lead to further contributions to society, it only makes sense.
Instead of being greedy and focusing on piracy which is ultimately a good thing which is also inevitable, why not focus on healthcare or something useful?
That's true for many inventions/fields. What's your point?
Who cares about Deutch and its plethora of made up words that don't need to exist?
There is no God. Sorry.
That assumes a creator, much like the makers of the constitution did. Without a creator, the only rights you have come from the government.
Sorry, but you have that backwards. The government grants rights. Without a government to enforce your rights, your rights exist only in your mind.
Practically, it is.
Rights are not about what you need to survive, but about quality of life. In this modern age why would unrestricted internet access not be a basic right?
A gun is dangerous weapon and there is a good argument for limiting and tracking their issue with a license. What is the argument for needing a license to own a TV?
Hi, I am very interested. I certainly don't know much about physics but was taking the view that it is just as silly to dismiss the possibility of FTL as it was for people to dismiss airplanes or spaceships. I figured it was somewhat more complex than that, so thankyou for explaining about maxwell's equations. Now, why would something being FTL break maxwell's equations? Could there be no other equations which work and take FTL speeds into account?
Because we really don't know enough to say for certain. We don't even know how gravity works. Why is it so hard to think that something could travel faster than light? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But we should also stop assuming that the theory of relativity is more reliable than it is or that our knowledge is anything other than incomplete and premature. I think it is only a matter of time until we something that can exceed C.
He believes his solution to be better than what a committee came up with and that he is perhaps smarter than them. I think he is perhaps right.
How does Facebook do business in Germany? Simply because Germans use it is not enough.
The registry replaces INF files, and the time to search it is infinitesimal. It really doesn't matter how many irrelivant entries are added, as it does not impact the lookup time for the relevant entries. For that to happen the registry would have to increase in size due X amount of rubbish entries, with X being a number so high it is impractical.
You really don't know what you're talking about. Dead registry entries don't cause Windows to be slower, for example. That software is unnecessary and won't make any significant difference.
read up on chip and pin. It has shown to be insecure time and time again. It is just a way for the banks to shift liability.
credit cards shouldnt have a chip, as chip and pin is very insecure. most other countries use online banking , brazil is not special in this regard.
I'd mod you up if I hadn't caused the reply in the first place. Very nicely said.
You may have a point, but it seems antiquated to have a law system where there are lords of any sort. Esp A house of Lords being superior to a House of Commons.
How is a statement of fact trolling?
Not to mention the lack of any kind of advanced access controls or mandatory access controls, or even auditing. OpenBSD has a very, very narrow definition of security and good advertising to hide the fact.
Okay, first off, to start at the end: your article about "picking apart some of the so called science in Avatar" begins with "Fortunately, James Cameron has a knack for science that rivals his moviemaking skills."? And did you read the section he added near the end after reading reader comments? He retracted most of his (already limited) criticisms to boot!
He didn't retract his criticisms, he found explanations that make them somewhat more plausible. That's quite a different thing, however it is exactly that you can do with Firefly, which is why both are equally hard sci-fi.
Come on, why not just give it up and accept that it's hard sci-fi and Firefly isn't?
Because it isn't true. You have simply considered some things as more plausible than others, and are choosing to ignoring the liberties taken that reduce the scientific accuracy of Avatar, while paying special attention to the liberties Firefly takes. Both are as hard as each other because both are based on science and on things which are plausible, regardless of how likely they may be.
It's not baseless at all. It's incredibly common even on Earth, let alone on a planet with a fully independent line of evolution. We have countless leg combinations. And even if you only want to count macroscopic animals (BTW: on a lower-gravity body like Pandora, the boundary for "macroscopic" becomes much larger), we have quadrapeds, bipeds (including all birds), some rare tripeds (kangaroos engage in tripedal movement at certain gaits), and animals with no legs, which is equivalent in locomotion to having an infinite number of infinitely small legs. At various times in Earth's history, animals with many legs *have* been the largest or among the largest species alive. For example, Jaekelopterus rhenaniae or Arthropleura
Sorry, but it is baseless. There is a reason that animals as large as tigers and elephants are not six legged. There is also good reason why it tends to be insects and such that have more than 4 legs. On Avatar it seems they simply wanted to make something alien, without giving though to why they would look that way. Comparing insects on earth and saying since small animals have many legs than large animals can have many legs doesn't cut it. There is a reason why large animals don't have many legs and it was not explained sufficiently in movie or in a discussion about the movie why that would not be true on Pandora.
Are you kidding? On Earth we've come up with all sorts of absurdly complex, incredibly limited ways to try to communicate with each other (including between species, and even between life of different kingdoms -- let me tell you, a plant making its fruit turn bright colors and smell nice when the seeds inside are developed isn't just a coincidence).... and you're seriously trying to claim that on a planet that has a natural *planetwide superconducting network on it*, lifeforms wouldn't be at a massive evolutionary disadvantage to not be tapped into it? To reiterate, all tapped into that *same network*, *together*? The equivalent on Earth would be if sound on Earth carried for hundreds or thousands of miles and to make and to hear a sound, all species must use roughly the same frequency band. You really think that's not some *huge* evolutionary pressure toward long-range interspecies communication?
You're missing the point. It's overly complex, and kind of goes against the whole survival of the fittest thing. Animals in near species may have such a thing and be compatible, but what reason would a predator have to interlink with prey from a very removed species? Simply because we have a complex ecosystem with many interesting ways for animals and plants to communicate, that is no argument for an ecosystem having one huge network. Our ecosystem is a system of tiny networks...one huge universal network is much harder to explain.
In the same sense that building a plane
I haven't seen the movie since it came out but I don't recall there being any hard sci-fi reason that would explain all organisms having a way to interconnect. The compatibility between all organisims is overly complex and far fetched, and it's hard to think of any plausible reason why that would have come about (based on what I remember).
Terraforming is entirely plausible. Not sure why you classify it as borderline fantasy. There are many things that are plausible and we understand how to do but can't currently do. That doesn't make them borderline fantasy.
Not sure what you mean by "terraforming gravity"...I don't see why they couldnt have only terraformed planets that had gravity similar to earth in the first place.
Avatar had artificial gravity, so I guess that is another strike for it being hard sci-fi. Anyway, I disagree that it is that far-fetched or would require absurd amounts of energy to create it. We don't even fully understand gravity yet...who is to say once it is better understood it cannot be more easily manipulated?
In Avatar, when they are all standing on their ship and not floating, I would say that is the result of artificial gravity. Play with semantics all you like but as stuff was not floating away, they obviously had some sort of artificial gravity.
IN Firefly the conversations were normally with ships in the same area. In the movie when they talk to Mr Universe we don't know how far away he is.
I liked both movies, I just find it funny when people like to say one work of sci-fi is hard and one is not, when both containing things which are far fetched, both contains things we know are not true or unlikely and both contain things which are completely plausible.
this article does a good job of picking apart some of the so called science in Avatar.