Nothing, I would (and have) also said that Lay and Skilling are also no better than murderers. When you take business actions that cause people to die, I hold you responsible.
The problem most of us have with patents is just that they are so severely broken that we'd be better off with no patents than with the current system. Which is not to say that something in between might not be best, but it would need to be much closer to the no patents side of things than the current system, and so it will seem to many that abolishing patents entirely (and then if need be re-establishing a new system) would be a good solution.
Well sure, if nothing is against the law, your crime rate is going to be quite low. If we legallized most drugs in the US, the crime rate would drop by something like 90%. If we legallized murder, rape, and child abuse we could get rid of most of the remaining 10%.
That's total wishful thinking on the part of Rockefeller apologists. How many of the people he oppressed might have instead turned out to be great scientists, or cured cancer or....
To imagine that things wouldn't have gotten just as much or more better without him is utter hubris. Ridiculous really.
Sure, he's not the worst, my point is only that he's bad. Should we praise people who only sexually abuse children a little bit, if they give a lot to charity? I hope you would agree that obviously we should not.
Perhaps you're just joking, but like it or not, probably 9 out of 10 slashdotters will have to do some kind of vista support in the first 3-6 months after it is released, so information on it is clearly news of relevance to most of us.
It may be substantially slower with many torrents seeking all over the place, but surely not 20x slower, which is what it would take to be slower than an 8mbit cable service. And even if that were the case, I would suggest that this isn't representative of the case I think is likely (content serving) which tends to be much more sequential.
I guess, but even if your hard drive is only delivering 2 megabyte per second, that's plenty to saturate an 8mbit/sec cable link. I wouldn't think that anyone with a computer bought in the last 4 years is hard drive rather than network limited. I do think that fiber to the home could at least reverse that, so that the local connection is not the weakest link.
Just to check myself, I just copied 1,411,776,512 bytes in 100 seconds, a rate of roughly 13.46 megaBytes/sec (even using 1024 dividers), and that's not even with a fast or raided desktop drive, just a laptop drive bought 1.5 years ago.
Absolutely. Are you sure you don't get 1-2 mByte/s on your laptop hdd? and 11-12mByte/s on a usb2 memory stick? Because I get about 18mByte/sec on my internal laptop harddrive, and roughly the same on a high end memory stick. With my server, I can deliver around 60mByte/sec, much more than enough to max out my 768kBit/sec upstream DSL bandwidth.
Objectivist morality is easy to establish. Find a small list of moral closures that everyone agrees on, and build from there. If everyone agrees on basic principles, then the subjective nature of the decision is irrelevant.
On the other side of the view, morality can be defined as doing what is responsible. Thus regardless of the nature of your subjective morality, you still have a resposibility to act morally.
... the backbone is not the bottleneck. What if I want to serve up home videos of my kids to their grandparents? I can serve up more than 1.5mbps, my parents can consume it, and there aren't any heavily contested resources between us. As more and more people catch on to the fun factor of serving up their own content, and as tools to make that easy become more widely available, the demand for high bandwidth connections is going to go through the roof.
First, most of human evolution occurred before the advent of writing. During that period, violence, malnutrition, and disease were (likely) the main killers, and infant mortality isn't even factored into estimates of the average lifespan. By the time you reach the point where the chinese are keeping written records, you're long past the point where those issues were the primary determinants of reproductive success. Likewise, by the time you have plains indians, you're long past the point in evolution where the value of meat helped to determine reproductive success. By the time you have trade, or people practicing agrarianist economies, you're too close to the present, you have to think about what happened further back, when we were closer to apes than modern humans.
Again, with the japanese, you're thinking far too short term for evolution. 10 generations or 100 is not nearly enough. Interesting variations are only going to occur in the 10,000 to 100,000 generation span.
Indeed, though to some extent they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: the ticket prices are pretty well fixed by the movie producers, and the theater margin is usually <$1, so they raise their food prices through the roof to try to make some money. Unfortunately, that drives business away. Movie producers will have to give theaters more breathing room if they want to keep the theater distribution channel alive at all.
It surely shouldn't have done that! I've not had anyone else report that. Would you mind telling me what OS/browser you are using?
I really can't imagine how it would freeze your computer, unless you have a corrupted installation of java or something like that. It's a java 5 applet, any browser without access to java5 ought to just display some sort of 'can't run' logo.
Morality always applies, to every situation. It is all of our responsibility, including those who work for both theaters and movie producers to always act in a moral way, even should that conflict with business interests.
The side that gives consumers choice is right. So let's see who that is. Movie producer is saying: let's put the DVD's out at the same time. That will allow consumers to decide whether to buy or to see the movie in the theater. The theaters want to keep the movies out of consumers hands, forceing them to see the movie in the theater if they want to be able to talk about the movie in the watercooler relevance timeframe.
From the evolutionary position this is easy to explain. Meat is very, very dense calorie wise compared to veggies. When you're a human being struggling to get enough food for survival for, say, the last 10 million years, and your lifespan averaged less than 30 years, meat was extremely good for you. The heart clogging problems with the fat and cholesterol don't kick in until your average lifespan hits 40+ (how many people die of heart attack due to over-eating meat before 25?), and even then, the odds that it will impact your likelihood of reproduction are small. The bottom line: meat is bad for your longevity, not your reproduction, and for your ancestors it was very good for their reproduction.
Given the number of women advocating vegetarian lifestyles, it could be argued that given another 10,000 or 100,000 generations, the preference for meat taste will go away.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing, I would (and have) also said that Lay and Skilling are also no better than murderers. When you take business actions that cause people to die, I hold you responsible.
IANACL and IANAPP, but won't this cause the universe to collapse, destroying us all?
The problem most of us have with patents is just that they are so severely broken that we'd be better off with no patents than with the current system. Which is not to say that something in between might not be best, but it would need to be much closer to the no patents side of things than the current system, and so it will seem to many that abolishing patents entirely (and then if need be re-establishing a new system) would be a good solution.
Well sure, if nothing is against the law, your crime rate is going to be quite low. If we legallized most drugs in the US, the crime rate would drop by something like 90%. If we legallized murder, rape, and child abuse we could get rid of most of the remaining 10%.
That's total wishful thinking on the part of Rockefeller apologists. How many of the people he oppressed might have instead turned out to be great scientists, or cured cancer or ....
To imagine that things wouldn't have gotten just as much or more better without him is utter hubris. Ridiculous really.
Sure, he's not the worst, my point is only that he's bad. Should we praise people who only sexually abuse children a little bit, if they give a lot to charity? I hope you would agree that obviously we should not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humani ty
Fits to me. How many people have died thanks to Bill Gates monopoly? I'd hate to guess, but surely in the thousands.
Exactly how much of the wealth that you acquire by committing crimes against humanity do you have to give away before you get away with it?
I predict both apples will lose money on court and legal costs, and neither to be satisfied with the outcome of the case.
I would say a lot of skin cancer researchers would be surprised by your claim that being exposed to sunlight doesn't kill anyone.
Perhaps you're just joking, but like it or not, probably 9 out of 10 slashdotters will have to do some kind of vista support in the first 3-6 months after it is released, so information on it is clearly news of relevance to most of us.
It may be substantially slower with many torrents seeking all over the place, but surely not 20x slower, which is what it would take to be slower than an 8mbit cable service. And even if that were the case, I would suggest that this isn't representative of the case I think is likely (content serving) which tends to be much more sequential.
I guess, but even if your hard drive is only delivering 2 megabyte per second, that's plenty to saturate an 8mbit/sec cable link. I wouldn't think that anyone with a computer bought in the last 4 years is hard drive rather than network limited. I do think that fiber to the home could at least reverse that, so that the local connection is not the weakest link.
Just to check myself, I just copied 1,411,776,512 bytes in 100 seconds, a rate of roughly 13.46 megaBytes/sec (even using 1024 dividers), and that's not even with a fast or raided desktop drive, just a laptop drive bought 1.5 years ago.
Absolutely. Are you sure you don't get 1-2 mByte/s on your laptop hdd? and 11-12mByte/s on a usb2 memory stick? Because I get about 18mByte/sec on my internal laptop harddrive, and roughly the same on a high end memory stick. With my server, I can deliver around 60mByte/sec, much more than enough to max out my 768k Bit /sec upstream DSL bandwidth.
Objectivist morality is easy to establish. Find a small list of moral closures that everyone agrees on, and build from there. If everyone agrees on basic principles, then the subjective nature of the decision is irrelevant.
On the other side of the view, morality can be defined as doing what is responsible. Thus regardless of the nature of your subjective morality, you still have a resposibility to act morally.
... the backbone is not the bottleneck. What if I want to serve up home videos of my kids to their grandparents? I can serve up more than 1.5mbps, my parents can consume it, and there aren't any heavily contested resources between us. As more and more people catch on to the fun factor of serving up their own content, and as tools to make that easy become more widely available, the demand for high bandwidth connections is going to go through the roof.
That was funny on so many levels. My favorite part was posting it to slashdot.
You've missed several key facts.
First, most of human evolution occurred before the advent of writing. During that period, violence, malnutrition, and disease were (likely) the main killers, and infant mortality isn't even factored into estimates of the average lifespan. By the time you reach the point where the chinese are keeping written records, you're long past the point where those issues were the primary determinants of reproductive success. Likewise, by the time you have plains indians, you're long past the point in evolution where the value of meat helped to determine reproductive success. By the time you have trade, or people practicing agrarianist economies, you're too close to the present, you have to think about what happened further back, when we were closer to apes than modern humans.
Again, with the japanese, you're thinking far too short term for evolution. 10 generations or 100 is not nearly enough. Interesting variations are only going to occur in the 10,000 to 100,000 generation span.
It's behind the locked metal panel in the upper right of the corner of the wall right of the door.
Indeed, though to some extent they are stuck between a rock and a hard place: the ticket prices are pretty well fixed by the movie producers, and the theater margin is usually <$1, so they raise their food prices through the roof to try to make some money. Unfortunately, that drives business away. Movie producers will have to give theaters more breathing room if they want to keep the theater distribution channel alive at all.
It surely shouldn't have done that! I've not had anyone else report that. Would you mind telling me what OS/browser you are using?
I really can't imagine how it would freeze your computer, unless you have a corrupted installation of java or something like that. It's a java 5 applet, any browser without access to java5 ought to just display some sort of 'can't run' logo.
In any case, I'm very sorry if it was a hassle!
Morality always applies, to every situation. It is all of our responsibility, including those who work for both theaters and movie producers to always act in a moral way, even should that conflict with business interests.
How does this benefit the consumer? I see how it benefits the theaters, but why does the consumer need or want to subsidize theaters?
The side that gives consumers choice is right. So let's see who that is. Movie producer is saying: let's put the DVD's out at the same time. That will allow consumers to decide whether to buy or to see the movie in the theater. The theaters want to keep the movies out of consumers hands, forceing them to see the movie in the theater if they want to be able to talk about the movie in the watercooler relevance timeframe.
So the movie producer is right.
OT: your sig
From the evolutionary position this is easy to explain. Meat is very, very dense calorie wise compared to veggies. When you're a human being struggling to get enough food for survival for, say, the last 10 million years, and your lifespan averaged less than 30 years, meat was extremely good for you. The heart clogging problems with the fat and cholesterol don't kick in until your average lifespan hits 40+ (how many people die of heart attack due to over-eating meat before 25?), and even then, the odds that it will impact your likelihood of reproduction are small. The bottom line: meat is bad for your longevity, not your reproduction, and for your ancestors it was very good for their reproduction.
Given the number of women advocating vegetarian lifestyles, it could be argued that given another 10,000 or 100,000 generations, the preference for meat taste will go away.