Really? Just how long do you expect that situation to continue?
I'm so sick of hearing this argument. If the government starts outlawing more and more activities "for our protection," are you positive that your personal life is so inoffensive in every possible way that you could allow anyone--regardless of their agenda--to go through it with a fine-toothed comb?
The problem with your argument is that the scope of the term "law-abiding" changes from day to day. One day, it's legal to drink alcohol. The next day, an amendment is passed outlawing the contents of your wine cellar. One day, your Colt 45 is just a cliched part of your Texan lifestyle, the next day it's an imprisonable offense. One day, your drug legalization post to USENET is a valued contribution to the national debate, the next day it's "incitement to terror or the encouragement of same." It doesn't matter if it's the ideas in your mind, the porn on your hard drive, the religion you practice, the technology you own, or the hobbies you pursue, I guarantee you that nobody is safe from having their freedoms encroached upon.
Even you, with your "go along, get along" attitude, may someday find that a law has been passed which you cannot follow in good conscience. Fight for your freedoms now. Don't wait until they've already arrested all your potential allies.
You don't understand. It's like how squirrels hoard nuts for the winter.
It's the same motivation that keeps us hanging on to USENET posts and 256-color pr0n from way back in 1990. It's not that the stuff is important to your everyday life. Just knowing it's still there in case you're bored is somehow comforting.
By the same token, the most important advantage of having all six seasons of Buffy on a little box in your living room is the ability to say, "Hey, I have all six seasons of Buffy on a little box in my living room."
Incidentally, the squirrels almost invariably forget where they put the nuts, so it's probably a stupid analogy.
Come on, the same people that pirate Photoshop also pirate $30 shareware products.
Hell, one of the most requested serial numbers requested (in a mac channel) is the sn# for Ircle, the shareware client most apple users use that has a 30 day limit.
If people are really that desperate to crack it, then the price is probably set way too high for the benefits perceived by the end user.
I guess the problem is, most people see Ircle as a chat system very much like the one being given away for free by Yahoo and AOL. More experienced users know that there are free IRC clients out there. Either way, the perception is that IRC is something a computer should just do, not something that you should have to pay extra for it to do. Thus, they don't pirate out of real need, but out of spite.
I guarantee that a lot more people would legally purchase Photoshop if it were going for $30. It's up to the publisher to decide where to set the price so it benefits them. Personally, my theory is that they set it on the high side. They don't want to deal with the silly fools who would purchase a $30 Photoshop and then expect ten hours of tech support.
That was my thinking when I slapped my most recent computer together. I grabbed a really nice motherboard, and then slapped in the cheapest processor the supplier was selling (a 1.2 Duron). I figure I'll upgrade when the 2400+'s hit the $70 range (this time next year, I'm guessing).
Poor AMD. I have to wonder if they're making any money off me at all.
By describing a method for bypassing a copyright protection mechanism, you are in violation of the DMCA. Hillary Rosen will be leading an angry horde of superintelligent police chimps to smash in your door immediately. If you know what's good for you, you will not try to leave your house.
It's not just putting parts together. It's the time it takes to remove your new NVIDIA GeForce 4 from its box, gaze at it in awe and wonderment, say a silent prayer of thanks to the gods of computing, and whisper affectionate nothings to it. Then repeat for each really nifty component. I can slap a normal box together in an hour or two, but a high-end system might take days.
"Getting at your more general question, the answer is also now. You're always guaranteed that if you wait it will be faster and cheaper. So what? Then you don't get the use of the machine until a long time from now."
I read somewhere that if you have a major computational problem ("major" meaning "I'm buying a big honkin' cluster that's going to hammer away at it for years") then the cheapest and fastest way to solve it is to figure out how long it would take a currently available setup to solve the problem, and sit back until at least half that time has elapsed before buying the hardware.
So "now" isn't always the best time. If you can get by on the old system for six months while your current dream system takes an $1800 nosedive, it's up to the individual to decide whether or not the upgraded performance is worth the price premium.
My rule of thumb has always been, wait until you just can't bear the old computer any longer. Then buy whatever specs are exactly half that of the best system available. You can generally get a very usable system at a bargain price, and don't have to deal much with the weird, unproven tech. Sucks to have a 28.8 modem, though.:)
In answer to your question, I'll give you the same advice I'd give Robert DeNiro: Read any book by Oliver Sacks. He's a highly regarded neurologist who has been writing about various brain diseases and injuries for decades. The movie "Awakenings" (Robin Williams) was based on some work he did with his patients, and "At First Sight" (Val Kilmer) was a true story based on a case he wrote about.
The "Memento" guy was supposed to be suffering from a brain injury where he was unable to form new memories. I think Sacks wrote about this precise malady. I'm not sure, but I think the script weakened the malady so that he could function plausibly in the movie.
So I wouldn't say it was based on science, but it did have a good science angle.
The trademark -- not a patent -- was by the owner of Demotivators.com, and it was on the:( emoticon (or "frownie"). As far as I know, the trademark is still valid, but fear not. Frownies are available to the public. Check out Demotivators.com, and mind the 1 gross minimum.
On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it. This might not (probably not?) happen, but it's worth thinking about--even if you're Canadian.
If such a technology were practical, then the Big 3 would collapse anyways (and presumably everyone else making consumer products in the traditional way). The Government wouldn't need to pay for technology like that anyways; it would be in the best interests of a private company to research it themselves.
More importantly, such technologies would contribute more to the economy than the Big 3 ever could, just going by your description. The new, bigger economy would find a new use for all those laid off folks. So I would argue that killing off the car manufacturers should be written off as "acceptable losses."
I'm okay with Germany doing this. The current products on the market are wholly owned by American companies, and it's in Germany's best interests to keep its dollars/marks/euros/whatever the heck they use inside the country. Also, it's a sensible move when the products on the market don't fulfill your needs in some specific way.
...but i honestly don't believe that there is any truly tamper-proof method unless it's made by god and god does all the tallying.
Under that system, the only result we could be assured of is that the system would declare God's favored candidate to be the winner. The problem is, God is claimed to be completely omniscient and entirely inscrutable. Therefore, there is absolutely no way for us mere mortals to ensure that our votes were being accurately tallied.
This is precisely the problem that Michael was complaining about with non-transparent solutions. If we can't double check the results, then the results given are garbage. Even if they come from God.
wait... that's a religious comment... those aren't allowed in the united states anymore, even though the country was originally founded under god for religious freedom... but that's another debate.
No, I think we should make it part of this debate. Religious comments are very much allowed on/. The problem comes when the government gives the appearance of endorsing some religious idea or creed (such as the display of the Ten Commandments), or compelling its citizens to do the same (the recitation of Pledge of Allegiance v2.0, or the "so help me God" statement before swearing a person onto the witness stand).
If the Founding Fathers had intended to force some form of religious belief or participation upon the citizens of their new republic, they had ample opportunity while the Constitution was being drawn up. However, there is no reference to God or the Bible in the Constitution, and only one reference to religion at all.
Were the founding fathers religious men? Many, though not all. Most Christians today would bristle at the sort of religion practiced by Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. But the ideas that made America different from all the monarchies and theocracies of the Old World came out of the Enlightenment, not out of the Bible.
Off topic: The person in the cube next to me left her cell phone on her desk, and someone has been calling it every two minutes for the last hour and just letting it ring. I'm entertaining suggestions as to what I should do with the infernal device.
There's always just turning it off, or wrapping a towel around it, but that's not nearly fun enough. Feel evil today? Answer it. If they're trying to order something, tell them it will be shipped out immediately. If they're looking to sell something, buy it. If they're calling to get you to schedule an appointment, ask if 4:30 tomorrow is good for them. You get the idea.
Interesting, although I suppose "Open Source TV" is actually an appropriate description. After all, he's allowing download of the raw footage, which is the TV world equivalent of source code.
But let's just call it "commie-anarchist-hippie-software-pirate TV" to make sure we've called all our bases.:)
I didn't mean to imply that there was something nefarious going on with the contest. The parent post was describing the contest as a way to make a living, and I was merely approaching it from the angle he chose. I do apologize for any confusion.
What has this server done to warrant this death sentence? Has it been distributing bomb schematics? Breaking into financial institutions to help fund terror in the Middle East? Did it do something to anger Bill Gates? I highly doubt it.
Is there nobody here with the guts to give this server a stay of execution? What about the Governor? This is an injustice that can only be rectified at the highest levels.
Sit not idly by while an innocent server goes to its doom. Would you be motivated if, instead of a cold cathode ray tube, it was Tux sitting in that crusher? Well, it is! A poor, helpless penguin who is unaware of his own fate! Write your congressman. Write the President! Write Kevin Mitnick! The insanity must be stopped!
That's kind of a simplistic analysis. First, if you divide the potential winnings by the number of serious entrants, you get a better idea of the actual value of the prize being offered. Say that, of the 42 currently being developed, 22 are actually going to send in a finished game. Each of the 22 puts in 2 months of normal working hours on their projects. That's $11,000 being paid out for 44 man/months of effort.
Sure, if you were a truly great coder who had no doubt of your ability to win, then the perceived value would be a lot higher. But if you're that good, the only thing stopping you from making more than $66,000 is you.
The main motivations are likely to be street cred and sheer coding enjoyment.
Wait, so you get the Big Bang and the formation of galaxies and stars and planets out of "God created the Heavens and the Earth?" Worse, Genesis doesn't say the sun has been created yet.
Seems pretty obvious that you're twisting the story like a pretzel to get it to match up with current scientific understanding.
1.2 water 1.2-1.5 earth rotation
The Earth was rotating before it had even settled down into a nice ball-ish shape. Conservation of angular momentum and whatnot.
1.6-1.8 air 1.9-1.10 continents
1.11-1.13 plant life 1.14-1.19 moon and/or decrease in cloud cover
Notice how he deliberately leaves out the creation of the Sun at the same time. Kinda throws a nice big kink in the whole thing.
1.20-1.25 land, air and sea animals
"Plants," as we normally think of them, probably hit the evolutionary scene before animals. They evolved together, yet the story seems to make the two separate, distinct, and most importantly unsynchronized events.
1.26-1.31 human 2.1-2.2 vacation!
Now, I don't mind if people claim the general correctness of the broadest strokes of Genesis (God is the Creator, God is powerful, and whatnot). But trying to match up the details is an exercise in futility, and trying to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible had special knowledge based on the misrepresentation of those details is an exercise in dishonesty.
'But most parents don't lock their kids in the garage for the rest of their lives if the kids say "I don't think you're really my parents."
Well, if they'd ever bothered to read Onerous Coward's Guide to Child Rearing, they would. It's the same method I've used to rear up thirty-nine children into an elite fighting force that will soon be taking over Madegascar. Little Suzie, my youngest, just got back from Afghanistan, where she was teaching other seven-year-olds to disarm land mines.
Look, citing the flowchart does absolutely nothing to deflect the criticism. The post you replied to wasn't making the blanket statement that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worshipped exactly the same being. He was making the much more modest--and relevant--claim that they all claimed that omnibenevolence is one of the defining characteristics of their respective Gods.
Who worships God the Father versus God the Son is completely irrelevant here.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Just how long do you expect that situation to continue?
I'm so sick of hearing this argument. If the government starts outlawing more and more activities "for our protection," are you positive that your personal life is so inoffensive in every possible way that you could allow anyone--regardless of their agenda--to go through it with a fine-toothed comb?
The problem with your argument is that the scope of the term "law-abiding" changes from day to day. One day, it's legal to drink alcohol. The next day, an amendment is passed outlawing the contents of your wine cellar. One day, your Colt 45 is just a cliched part of your Texan lifestyle, the next day it's an imprisonable offense. One day, your drug legalization post to USENET is a valued contribution to the national debate, the next day it's "incitement to terror or the encouragement of same." It doesn't matter if it's the ideas in your mind, the porn on your hard drive, the religion you practice, the technology you own, or the hobbies you pursue, I guarantee you that nobody is safe from having their freedoms encroached upon.
Even you, with your "go along, get along" attitude, may someday find that a law has been passed which you cannot follow in good conscience. Fight for your freedoms now. Don't wait until they've already arrested all your potential allies.
/me starts handing out copies of Yellow Dog Linux.
Here, this'll ease the pain.
You don't understand. It's like how squirrels hoard nuts for the winter.
It's the same motivation that keeps us hanging on to USENET posts and 256-color pr0n from way back in 1990. It's not that the stuff is important to your everyday life. Just knowing it's still there in case you're bored is somehow comforting.
By the same token, the most important advantage of having all six seasons of Buffy on a little box in your living room is the ability to say, "Hey, I have all six seasons of Buffy on a little box in my living room."
Incidentally, the squirrels almost invariably forget where they put the nuts, so it's probably a stupid analogy.
25. Fan. And I just started listening to his stuff about a year ago.
Ah, yes. The good old days when everything was gay, except Vanilla Ice. Someone remind me why I liked him?
I guess the problem is, most people see Ircle as a chat system very much like the one being given away for free by Yahoo and AOL. More experienced users know that there are free IRC clients out there. Either way, the perception is that IRC is something a computer should just do, not something that you should have to pay extra for it to do. Thus, they don't pirate out of real need, but out of spite.
I guarantee that a lot more people would legally purchase Photoshop if it were going for $30. It's up to the publisher to decide where to set the price so it benefits them. Personally, my theory is that they set it on the high side. They don't want to deal with the silly fools who would purchase a $30 Photoshop and then expect ten hours of tech support.
That was my thinking when I slapped my most recent computer together. I grabbed a really nice motherboard, and then slapped in the cheapest processor the supplier was selling (a 1.2 Duron). I figure I'll upgrade when the 2400+'s hit the $70 range (this time next year, I'm guessing).
Poor AMD. I have to wonder if they're making any money off me at all.
"A steady diet of fast food takes its toll on your Sim. Lose one body skill point."
Or give the Sim a heart attack after ten straight days of the stuff. Something. Anything.
By describing a method for bypassing a copyright protection mechanism, you are in violation of the DMCA. Hillary Rosen will be leading an angry horde of superintelligent police chimps to smash in your door immediately. If you know what's good for you, you will not try to leave your house.
It's not just putting parts together. It's the time it takes to remove your new NVIDIA GeForce 4 from its box, gaze at it in awe and wonderment, say a silent prayer of thanks to the gods of computing, and whisper affectionate nothings to it. Then repeat for each really nifty component. I can slap a normal box together in an hour or two, but a high-end system might take days.
So "now" isn't always the best time. If you can get by on the old system for six months while your current dream system takes an $1800 nosedive, it's up to the individual to decide whether or not the upgraded performance is worth the price premium.
My rule of thumb has always been, wait until you just can't bear the old computer any longer. Then buy whatever specs are exactly half that of the best system available. You can generally get a very usable system at a bargain price, and don't have to deal much with the weird, unproven tech. Sucks to have a 28.8 modem, though.
/me beats himself upside the head with a frozen salmon.
There was this moment last night--when Tux was sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarves and the Maori tribesman...
Sorry.
In answer to your question, I'll give you the same advice I'd give Robert DeNiro: Read any book by Oliver Sacks. He's a highly regarded neurologist who has been writing about various brain diseases and injuries for decades. The movie "Awakenings" (Robin Williams) was based on some work he did with his patients, and "At First Sight" (Val Kilmer) was a true story based on a case he wrote about.
The "Memento" guy was supposed to be suffering from a brain injury where he was unable to form new memories. I think Sacks wrote about this precise malady. I'm not sure, but I think the script weakened the malady so that he could function plausibly in the movie.
So I wouldn't say it was based on science, but it did have a good science angle.
The trademark -- not a patent -- was by the owner of Demotivators.com, and it was on the :( emoticon (or "frownie"). As far as I know, the trademark is still valid, but fear not. Frownies are available to the public. Check out Demotivators.com, and mind the 1 gross minimum.
More importantly, such technologies would contribute more to the economy than the Big 3 ever could, just going by your description. The new, bigger economy would find a new use for all those laid off folks. So I would argue that killing off the car manufacturers should be written off as "acceptable losses."
I'm okay with Germany doing this. The current products on the market are wholly owned by American companies, and it's in Germany's best interests to keep its dollars/marks/euros/whatever the heck they use inside the country. Also, it's a sensible move when the products on the market don't fulfill your needs in some specific way.
This is precisely the problem that Michael was complaining about with non-transparent solutions. If we can't double check the results, then the results given are garbage. Even if they come from God.
No, I think we should make it part of this debate. Religious comments are very much allowed on
If the Founding Fathers had intended to force some form of religious belief or participation upon the citizens of their new republic, they had ample opportunity while the Constitution was being drawn up. However, there is no reference to God or the Bible in the Constitution, and only one reference to religion at all.
Were the founding fathers religious men? Many, though not all. Most Christians today would bristle at the sort of religion practiced by Thomas Paine, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. But the ideas that made America different from all the monarchies and theocracies of the Old World came out of the Enlightenment, not out of the Bible.
Or you could answer with, "Hey there, sexy."
Interesting, although I suppose "Open Source TV" is actually an appropriate description. After all, he's allowing download of the raw footage, which is the TV world equivalent of source code.
:)
But let's just call it "commie-anarchist-hippie-software-pirate TV" to make sure we've called all our bases.
I didn't mean to imply that there was something nefarious going on with the contest. The parent post was describing the contest as a way to make a living, and I was merely approaching it from the angle he chose. I do apologize for any confusion.
What has this server done to warrant this death sentence? Has it been distributing bomb schematics? Breaking into financial institutions to help fund terror in the Middle East? Did it do something to anger Bill Gates? I highly doubt it.
Is there nobody here with the guts to give this server a stay of execution? What about the Governor? This is an injustice that can only be rectified at the highest levels.
Sit not idly by while an innocent server goes to its doom. Would you be motivated if, instead of a cold cathode ray tube, it was Tux sitting in that crusher? Well, it is! A poor, helpless penguin who is unaware of his own fate! Write your congressman. Write the President! Write Kevin Mitnick! The insanity must be stopped!
That's kind of a simplistic analysis. First, if you divide the potential winnings by the number of serious entrants, you get a better idea of the actual value of the prize being offered. Say that, of the 42 currently being developed, 22 are actually going to send in a finished game. Each of the 22 puts in 2 months of normal working hours on their projects. That's $11,000 being paid out for 44 man/months of effort.
Sure, if you were a truly great coder who had no doubt of your ability to win, then the perceived value would be a lot higher. But if you're that good, the only thing stopping you from making more than $66,000 is you.
The main motivations are likely to be street cred and sheer coding enjoyment.
After you're done evaluating "The Case for Christ," try this link for a secular evaluation of the "evidence."
1.1a heaven
1.1b earth
Wait, so you get the Big Bang and the formation of galaxies and stars and planets out of "God created the Heavens and the Earth?" Worse, Genesis doesn't say the sun has been created yet.
Seems pretty obvious that you're twisting the story like a pretzel to get it to match up with current scientific understanding.
1.2 water
1.2-1.5 earth rotation
The Earth was rotating before it had even settled down into a nice ball-ish shape. Conservation of angular momentum and whatnot.
1.6-1.8 air
1.9-1.10 continents
1.11-1.13 plant life
1.14-1.19 moon and/or decrease in cloud cover
Notice how he deliberately leaves out the creation of the Sun at the same time. Kinda throws a nice big kink in the whole thing.
1.20-1.25 land, air and sea animals
"Plants," as we normally think of them, probably hit the evolutionary scene before animals. They evolved together, yet the story seems to make the two separate, distinct, and most importantly unsynchronized events.
1.26-1.31 human
2.1-2.2 vacation!
Now, I don't mind if people claim the general correctness of the broadest strokes of Genesis (God is the Creator, God is powerful, and whatnot). But trying to match up the details is an exercise in futility, and trying to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible had special knowledge based on the misrepresentation of those details is an exercise in dishonesty.
OC's method really works, and will work for you.
Look, citing the flowchart does absolutely nothing to deflect the criticism. The post you replied to wasn't making the blanket statement that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worshipped exactly the same being. He was making the much more modest--and relevant--claim that they all claimed that omnibenevolence is one of the defining characteristics of their respective Gods.
Who worships God the Father versus God the Son is completely irrelevant here.