it is called "Universal Media disc", because calling it "restrictive media disc" wouldn't look as good to your customers...you can likely thank the marketing department for making up that name.
on the other side of the argument, how would shutting this down be any different than shutting down your car? so then is shutting down your car analogous to murder?
as for a conscience brain simulated by a computer, it should be possible to save the current state of the brain, and as such i would think shutting it down wouldn't be too much different than putting it to sleep. you could start the simulation back up any time you wanted from the previous save state. something that creatures like us are unable to do.
i don't know what you are smoking, creating and participating in an anonymous system is the exact thing that will break the current climate that you find "abhorrent"
if there is a lot of interest and participation in the new program then it will send a message that we don't like having everything we read looked over with a fine toothed comb. if you want the laws to change you need to express your dislike for the current laws, or no one will get the message and think everything is fine.
this anonymous check out is a solution to your problem, yet you are rejecting it to keep the old system, i don't understand
always been in power? i would say so. they control the minds of millions of people, indeed i would say that is power. maybe not so much power as they had during the middle ages, but they still definately influence many people.
the same could be said for all major religions. most of which are organizations which have survived 1000's of years.
With some imagination you will realize that a civilization could also not last for thousands of years.
maybe or maybe not, but a religion/cult can...sort of like the jedi
what year is it currently? 2005? based on the calender of a small cult called christians that still exists today. or if you want to go back further yet, you have the jews which predated the christians and also still exist today.
a lot has changed in those 2005 years, but relics of that time still exist.
i am merely trying to find an explanations that already exists without reinventing things. it may very well be that we don't have enough information to explain some of this phenomena, but some of the ideas of quantum mechanics still seem almost too mystical....sort of like alchemy or astrology...which i might add led to chemistry and astronomy and so both were just a stepping stone to future advancements even though they were filled with many misconceptions at the time. so it doesn't mean it is invalid, only that we have more we need to learn, and that it may very well be possible that some of the things we currently think about it really aren't valid.
I'll start by describing a classic experiment (in the sense that it has historical interest, not that it belongs to classical theory). To observe the direction of a spin, you let the particles drift through a magnetic field, and see how their path deviates. It turns out that the result is always either "up" or "down" (both along the magnetic field). Half are up and half are down. According to classical theory, there should be an even spectrum between up and down. Now, put another magnetic field, at right angles to the first one, in the path of just those particles whose spin were, say, up. Along the new direction, of the second magnetic field, the particles will again be either up or down. If the second field had been along the first one, they would all have been up, and if it had been in the opposite direction, they would all have been down.
that is all fine and well, but if i understand the experiment correctly, i don't see why it needs any special theory to explain the results.
for instance lets look at the way the earth spins, earth spins in all 3 dimensions. first it spins along its axist, but that axis also precesses, and thus the axis of spin is not always facing the same direction.
it seems any spinning object could exhibit these same properties.
thus lets say you try to determine how a particle is spinning. lets say you set up this equipment as close as possible to be exactly perpendicular to it's axis of spin...you measure it once, and you find out that it is spinning up...you then wait a few seconds and measure it again...however this time you find it is spinning down
how could this be? in the experement above the particle is primarily spinning either left or right in relation to our measuring instrument, but it will have a slight component of up or down due to the precession of the axis and the amount of this up or down spin will gradually change over time...possible to the point that at one time we measure it it appears to be spinning up, and the next time it appears to be spinning down.
also, unless there is some csomic rule i don't know about all object can spin in 3 dimensions, and so it isn't as simple as just if the spin is up or down...the spin could also have a component of left or right to it. so it is not surprising that when you add a second perpendicular magnetice field that you find that the particle was spinning up and to the left... or up and to the right. so i don't see anything that doesn't seem to fit within normal physics, unless i misunderstood the expirement you outlined.
i didn't use any such terms the last time i was flamed, that is what gave me the impression it is a "new religion" they want me to take it on faith without any explanation...and apparently you don't dare say anything against it or you will have to face the/. inquisition.
capitol letters? i don't see any of those on my keyboard
why is the cat both dead and alive? why can a bit be both one and zero? i don't understand this and would like to hear an explanation that makes sense.
why does it need an "observer"? what exactly is an "observer"? how do we know this is the case? seems to me that the cat is either dead or alive how can it be both? you open the box and find the cat dead or alive, so how do you know it was in some other state before "observing" it? this all seems counterintuitive to normal logic so why should i believe it is true?
last time i asked this i was modded a troll, and was flaimed to death over this new religion that i am supposed to take on faith without any proof. i am merely looking for an explanation to something i don't understand.
i wonder if they could include a second "emergency" gas tank on it. and design it so if the primary tank is empty the engine will refuse to start but if you are already in the air when the primary tank goes empty lights start blinking and it starts using the emergency tank. the emergency tank would just be meant to give you enough gas to safely land. i guess you could do this all with just one tank and monitor the level of fuel in it.
Occassionally we would have someone whos card was not approved after calling their own card company who would huff that they would go elsewhere and no amount of explaining that it was their own bank who had declined them and not the store would help them see sense. I wished to follow them to the store they so loudly insisted they were taking their business to see them be declined their.
i have had a check declined by a business before for reasons i don't know. the check was completely valid, and i had enough money to cover it and have never bounced a check. they had to call the damn thing in somewhere and then they ended up declining it. i have no idea why they declined it there was nothing wrong with it, but i was not happy and walked out. it may or may not be the stores direct fault, but the store is the one interacting with the customer, and so the customer gets angry with the store. i did go somewhere the following week, and they did accept the check for the same amount declined at the previous place. you are neglecting that fact that there might be some false positives and so some of those people huffing are using a legitimate checks/cards that shouldn't have been declined.
until then i had been a regular customer for that store, after that it was a number of years before i ever walked in the door again. i only started going back now because a friends brother works there and can occassionaly get me a discount. but even now i usually go to a competitor first.
it would be far easier to convert 1 power plant to an alternative fuel or source of power than it would be to convert millions of cards.
just because "it only shifts the oil use from the car to the power plant" is not a good arguement against electric cars. because in the future that power plant could be replaced by wind, solar, geothermal power, etc and suddenly overnight millions of cars are running on 100% clean energy.
so you are right, technically electric cars doen't fix the problem, but they potentially make the problem easier to fix.
most likely yes. however people were used to wordperfect...and even though we have probably been using office almost 2 years now, a number of them would still like to go back.
the university i work at used to use wordperfect, but then we (the it department) made everyone change to MS Office, because the state had a contract with them. a few of those people would probably think this is good news that word perfect might be coming back...
Doesn't this basically amount to fraud or something? i had thought the same thing...IANAL but if my understanding is correct it is indeed fraud, but the problem is that fraud cannot be prosecuted until someone complains, and so the actual fraud might not occur until after the phisher closes down their website and covers their tracks. what this law is trying to do is allow law enforcement to go after them before they get any complaints about fraud or identity theft and hopefully before all the evidence is destroyed.
so it isn't that doing this wasn't a crime already, it is just that this law tries to make it easier to stop it.
well either way, i have no sympathy for the record labels...they thought it was in their best interest to sign it to begin with, so now they should live with it. if they didn't like it they should have never signed an exclusive commitement. and even at $.99 i think itunes is overcharging.
the music industry is just trying to kill off legal downloads, because they figured out they don't make money from singles, they make all their money from albums that contain songs people don't want. and so increasing prices is merely a temporary bandaid, not a real solution to their problem. the real solution would be to actually start selling people what they really want.
so the point is that due to supply and demand, making a copy of something dilutes the value of the original. in the case of a park it isn't illegal, because there are no laws (that i know of) that dictate that you can't copy a park.
but now lets extend that argument to music...by making a copy you are hurting the value of the original, and there are laws that dictate such activities are illegal. and so by hurting the value of the original you are in a way indirectly stealing from the big evil music corp. at the very least this act is illegal, and so even if you don't like the label of thief, you are at the very least still a criminal.
now what if i were able to find some breakthrough in quantum mechanics that allows me to make a perfect copy of central park? by doing so central park is no longer unique and thus it will reduce the value of the park, since you can now go to my copy of it instead.
it may not necessarily be theft, but it did hurt the value of the original.
now wouldn't the same be true about music? by making a copy of a song and distributing it freely to anyone that wants it, wouldn't that adversely affect the value of the original copy of the song? and so if by our direct actions the song is now worth less money, doesn't it mean that we ultimately (if indirectly) are stealing money from some faceless (most/.'ers would say "greedy") corperation? seems to me that would be theft, even if it is only indirectly.
Slashdot Mirror
it is called "Universal Media disc", because calling it "restrictive media disc" wouldn't look as good to your customers...you can likely thank the marketing department for making up that name.
on the other side of the argument, how would shutting this down be any different than shutting down your car? so then is shutting down your car analogous to murder?
as for a conscience brain simulated by a computer, it should be possible to save the current state of the brain, and as such i would think shutting it down wouldn't be too much different than putting it to sleep. you could start the simulation back up any time you wanted from the previous save state. something that creatures like us are unable to do.
i don't know what you are smoking, creating and participating in an anonymous system is the exact thing that will break the current climate that you find "abhorrent"
if there is a lot of interest and participation in the new program then it will send a message that we don't like having everything we read looked over with a fine toothed comb. if you want the laws to change you need to express your dislike for the current laws, or no one will get the message and think everything is fine.
this anonymous check out is a solution to your problem, yet you are rejecting it to keep the old system, i don't understand
if you rtfa or the dupe from earlier this week, i believe you would find they are offshoring to europe, not india.
disclaimer, i didn't bother reading this article, because i read the previous one.
always been in power? i would say so. they control the minds of millions of people, indeed i would say that is power. maybe not so much power as they had during the middle ages, but they still definately influence many people.
the same could be said for all major religions. most of which are organizations which have survived 1000's of years.
With some imagination you will realize that a civilization could also not last for thousands of years.
maybe or maybe not, but a religion/cult can...sort of like the jedi
what year is it currently? 2005? based on the calender of a small cult called christians that still exists today. or if you want to go back further yet, you have the jews which predated the christians and also still exist today.
a lot has changed in those 2005 years, but relics of that time still exist.
this merely means that they are evolving to become impervious to fire
i am merely trying to find an explanations that already exists without reinventing things. it may very well be that we don't have enough information to explain some of this phenomena, but some of the ideas of quantum mechanics still seem almost too mystical....sort of like alchemy or astrology...which i might add led to chemistry and astronomy and so both were just a stepping stone to future advancements even though they were filled with many misconceptions at the time. so it doesn't mean it is invalid, only that we have more we need to learn, and that it may very well be possible that some of the things we currently think about it really aren't valid.
i guess i am glad i am macroscopic, the world makes much more sense that way.
thanks, i will check it out
I'll start by describing a classic experiment (in the sense that it has historical interest, not that it belongs to classical theory). To observe the direction of a spin, you let the particles drift through a magnetic field, and see how their path deviates. It turns out that the result is always either "up" or "down" (both along the magnetic field). Half are up and half are down. According to classical theory, there should be an even spectrum between up and down. Now, put another magnetic field, at right angles to the first one, in the path of just those particles whose spin were, say, up. Along the new direction, of the second magnetic field, the particles will again be either up or down. If the second field had been along the first one, they would all have been up, and if it had been in the opposite direction, they would all have been down.
that is all fine and well, but if i understand the experiment correctly, i don't see why it needs any special theory to explain the results.
for instance lets look at the way the earth spins, earth spins in all 3 dimensions. first it spins along its axist, but that axis also precesses, and thus the axis of spin is not always facing the same direction.
it seems any spinning object could exhibit these same properties.
thus lets say you try to determine how a particle is spinning. lets say you set up this equipment as close as possible to be exactly perpendicular to it's axis of spin...you measure it once, and you find out that it is spinning up...you then wait a few seconds and measure it again...however this time you find it is spinning down
how could this be? in the experement above the particle is primarily spinning either left or right in relation to our measuring instrument, but it will have a slight component of up or down due to the precession of the axis and the amount of this up or down spin will gradually change over time...possible to the point that at one time we measure it it appears to be spinning up, and the next time it appears to be spinning down.
also, unless there is some csomic rule i don't know about all object can spin in 3 dimensions, and so it isn't as simple as just if the spin is up or down...the spin could also have a component of left or right to it. so it is not surprising that when you add a second perpendicular magnetice field that you find that the particle was spinning up and to the left... or up and to the right. so i don't see anything that doesn't seem to fit within normal physics, unless i misunderstood the expirement you outlined.
i didn't use any such terms the last time i was flamed, that is what gave me the impression it is a "new religion" they want me to take it on faith without any explanation...and apparently you don't dare say anything against it or you will have to face the /. inquisition.
capitol letters? i don't see any of those on my keyboard
why is the cat both dead and alive? why can a bit be both one and zero? i don't understand this and would like to hear an explanation that makes sense.
why does it need an "observer"? what exactly is an "observer"? how do we know this is the case? seems to me that the cat is either dead or alive how can it be both? you open the box and find the cat dead or alive, so how do you know it was in some other state before "observing" it? this all seems counterintuitive to normal logic so why should i believe it is true?
last time i asked this i was modded a troll, and was flaimed to death over this new religion that i am supposed to take on faith without any proof. i am merely looking for an explanation to something i don't understand.
i wonder if they could include a second "emergency" gas tank on it. and design it so if the primary tank is empty the engine will refuse to start but if you are already in the air when the primary tank goes empty lights start blinking and it starts using the emergency tank. the emergency tank would just be meant to give you enough gas to safely land. i guess you could do this all with just one tank and monitor the level of fuel in it.
Occassionally we would have someone whos card was not approved after calling their own card company who would huff that they would go elsewhere and no amount of explaining that it was their own bank who had declined them and not the store would help them see sense. I wished to follow them to the store they so loudly insisted they were taking their business to see them be declined their.
i have had a check declined by a business before for reasons i don't know. the check was completely valid, and i had enough money to cover it and have never bounced a check. they had to call the damn thing in somewhere and then they ended up declining it. i have no idea why they declined it there was nothing wrong with it, but i was not happy and walked out. it may or may not be the stores direct fault, but the store is the one interacting with the customer, and so the customer gets angry with the store. i did go somewhere the following week, and they did accept the check for the same amount declined at the previous place. you are neglecting that fact that there might be some false positives and so some of those people huffing are using a legitimate checks/cards that shouldn't have been declined.
until then i had been a regular customer for that store, after that it was a number of years before i ever walked in the door again. i only started going back now because a friends brother works there and can occassionaly get me a discount. but even now i usually go to a competitor first.
it would be far easier to convert 1 power plant to an alternative fuel or source of power than it would be to convert millions of cards.
just because "it only shifts the oil use from the car to the power plant" is not a good arguement against electric cars. because in the future that power plant could be replaced by wind, solar, geothermal power, etc and suddenly overnight millions of cars are running on 100% clean energy.
so you are right, technically electric cars doen't fix the problem, but they potentially make the problem easier to fix.
Maybe, but it was still free. :)
they made up for it by charging to file your state taxes.
that is possibly because people don't have to pay sales tax...they just don't buy that object, and then you don't have to pay tax on it.
however income tax i have to pay every year without choice. not to mention follow complex laws that i don't understand.
tell that to the things it absorbed...i am sure they would have appreciated that distinction.
most likely yes. however people were used to wordperfect...and even though we have probably been using office almost 2 years now, a number of them would still like to go back.
the university i work at used to use wordperfect, but then we (the it department) made everyone change to MS Office, because the state had a contract with them. a few of those people would probably think this is good news that word perfect might be coming back...
Doesn't this basically amount to fraud or something?
i had thought the same thing...IANAL but if my understanding is correct it is indeed fraud, but the problem is that fraud cannot be prosecuted until someone complains, and so the actual fraud might not occur until after the phisher closes down their website and covers their tracks. what this law is trying to do is allow law enforcement to go after them before they get any complaints about fraud or identity theft and hopefully before all the evidence is destroyed.
so it isn't that doing this wasn't a crime already, it is just that this law tries to make it easier to stop it.
well either way, i have no sympathy for the record labels...they thought it was in their best interest to sign it to begin with, so now they should live with it. if they didn't like it they should have never signed an exclusive commitement. and even at $.99 i think itunes is overcharging.
the music industry is just trying to kill off legal downloads, because they figured out they don't make money from singles, they make all their money from albums that contain songs people don't want. and so increasing prices is merely a temporary bandaid, not a real solution to their problem. the real solution would be to actually start selling people what they really want.
So?
so the point is that due to supply and demand, making a copy of something dilutes the value of the original. in the case of a park it isn't illegal, because there are no laws (that i know of) that dictate that you can't copy a park.
but now lets extend that argument to music...by making a copy you are hurting the value of the original, and there are laws that dictate such activities are illegal. and so by hurting the value of the original you are in a way indirectly stealing from the big evil music corp. at the very least this act is illegal, and so even if you don't like the label of thief, you are at the very least still a criminal.
now what if i were able to find some breakthrough in quantum mechanics that allows me to make a perfect copy of central park? by doing so central park is no longer unique and thus it will reduce the value of the park, since you can now go to my copy of it instead.
/.'ers would say "greedy") corperation? seems to me that would be theft, even if it is only indirectly.
it may not necessarily be theft, but it did hurt the value of the original.
now wouldn't the same be true about music? by making a copy of a song and distributing it freely to anyone that wants it, wouldn't that adversely affect the value of the original copy of the song? and so if by our direct actions the song is now worth less money, doesn't it mean that we ultimately (if indirectly) are stealing money from some faceless (most