Heavy cars are safer for the ones sitting in them. But most crashes involve two vehicles, and the lighter one will get the majority of the damage. A 'weight arms race' is not safety.
The recent successes of various pirate parties made it clear that people do not like the current IP system. Now politicians have no other choice than to listen to them.
“regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”
The important word is 'can'. This is a very broad statement, as even one case where water reduced the risk of dehydration and decrease of performance will make it true. Granted, the statement doesn't contain much information but that wasn't the question.
For that reason: why allow bottled-water manufacturers to make some half-witted medical claim with which to praise their wares? Bottled water has always sold well enough without ascribing quasi-medical claims to it.
This seems to be a test to try the new laws by making obvious claims. Also, it's not the scientists' job to decide what marketing an industry can use, there are laws for that. Their job is to decide whether a claim is true or false. They failed in that.
In my opinion, art is a form of communication, and "l'art pour l'art" is as pointless as talking to yourself. A real artist does factor its audience in the piece, and I would argue that an audience is as important in a creation of a piece of art as the artists themselves.
Steganography software does not need to be on your computer, it can be on a web service. Also, encryption itself is not outlawed in most places (this would make everyone a criminal who visits a https site for example), you just have to hand over the password if asked. Now hidden drives can be found by scanning the hard drive, but steganography can't.
Because the IT sector is a huge driver of economy, and infrastructure should be supported not taxed.
Here's a more specific proposal of the same nature.
This doesn't provide a solution to distribute the money. Querying 100000 people would cost more than the whole "art budget".
Yes, that's enough to vindicate my statement, isn't it? But beyond the obscene length of the copyright, there is also the matter of domain. Is it ethical to allow to copyright research pertaining to a life-saving drug? Or a piece of software that can save billions of dollars for a developing country?
Is having food unethical because there are starving people in the world? These moral questions are not specific to copyright. Allowing only "non-commercial infringement" would not solve the problem, as at one point or another every commercial licencer has to sell to consumers to get paid. At the end of the day, the consumers are the last in the chain for every work, as they are the only ones providing money for the industry.
For example, if Bill Gates finishes designing his reactor then we could build one on the Moon, and use the uranium there to fuel it. The reactor would power the station and also generate enriched plutonium in the process, wich then could be shot down to Earth using mass driver system to shoot it back to Earth, thus having no need for fuel. Current railguns can already reach the lunar escape velocity, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Apparently Hawking is worried of our resources running out, but mining other celesatial bodies can be done without colonizing them. And even if we did colonize them, exponential growth would not be feasible indefinitely. I believe it's much easier to change our ways than to colonize space.
While some people laugh at France's [1] conviction that art should be sponsored by the government,
There are two different things here. First, that ISPs are being taxed, and second, that the money is being put into funding music. I believe that taxing the Internet causes much more harm to the economy than the money that can be gained.
to me it does look like a more ethical alternative to copyright.
I fail to see how copyright is unethical. Sure, lifetime+70 years is as unethical as it can get, but that's problem with the implementation, not with the idea of copyright. I do think that reasonable copyright laws would be much better than no copyright at all. The problem with people paying flat tax and art being sponsored 100% by the government is that art would become independent of the people's demands.
I would much rather pay a flat art tax and not be censored on the Internet than endure any more copyright legislation.
So how is that working out for you with HADOPI and three strike laws?
We have good reason to believe that the Universe expanded from a much smaller initial state. Thus, the homogenous matter/antimatter regions that were created early could become very big, maybe bigger than our visible Universe. But even if not, galaxies very rarely collide, and even when they do, it's only a "collision" in a gravitational sense, it's very unlikely that two stars actually hit each other.
Companies don't own a name. They own a name PLUS a TLD. If they had some magical right to all TLDs after they have registered one would make TLDs pretty useless. And would you care to elaborate exactly how a similarly named.xxx site is going to "damage the names" of businesses? I doubt that their potential customers will be searching for services on the.xxx domain.
The radiation of an antimatter star would be the exact same as a matter star. There is no way of knowing that our visible Universe is mainly matter. That the Universe is made mostly of matter is a myth not really backed up.
There are lossless fractal image encodings, the trick is that you have to find a fractal wich matches the image up to its resolution which is possible.
Exactly as predicted? Supernova theory is pretty much just speculation, with half of the models saying that the core should collapse without an explosion and the other half saying differently. We don't know enough about supernovas to precisely describe them. And we know even less about neutrinos.
Which is why I never understood why does the US put so much energy trying to build a rocket defence system. Do they really want a nuclear war? Or is it just another bluff like SDI?
This rocket seems somewhat less aggressive, as I don't think it is capable of preventing a retaliation. Even if it manages to destroy the rocket sites, there are nukes on planes, subs and Russia even has nuclear trains.
Slashdot Mirror
Heavy cars are safer for the ones sitting in them. But most crashes involve two vehicles, and the lighter one will get the majority of the damage. A 'weight arms race' is not safety.
The recent successes of various pirate parties made it clear that people do not like the current IP system. Now politicians have no other choice than to listen to them.
The actual claim is:
“regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”
The important word is 'can'. This is a very broad statement, as even one case where water reduced the risk of dehydration and decrease of performance will make it true. Granted, the statement doesn't contain much information but that wasn't the question.
For that reason: why allow bottled-water manufacturers to make some half-witted medical claim with which to praise their wares? Bottled water has always sold well enough without ascribing quasi-medical claims to it.
This seems to be a test to try the new laws by making obvious claims. Also, it's not the scientists' job to decide what marketing an industry can use, there are laws for that. Their job is to decide whether a claim is true or false. They failed in that.
“regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration”
The claim does not even mention bottled water.
Most bottled waters are mineral, so they have enough electrolytes.
You can encrypt it before as much as you like.
In my opinion, art is a form of communication, and "l'art pour l'art" is as pointless as talking to yourself. A real artist does factor its audience in the piece, and I would argue that an audience is as important in a creation of a piece of art as the artists themselves.
How else could we run DRM-d software?
Steganography software does not need to be on your computer, it can be on a web service. Also, encryption itself is not outlawed in most places (this would make everyone a criminal who visits a https site for example), you just have to hand over the password if asked. Now hidden drives can be found by scanning the hard drive, but steganography can't.
Why do you believe that?
Because the IT sector is a huge driver of economy, and infrastructure should be supported not taxed.
Here's a more specific proposal of the same nature.
This doesn't provide a solution to distribute the money. Querying 100000 people would cost more than the whole "art budget".
Yes, that's enough to vindicate my statement, isn't it? But beyond the obscene length of the copyright, there is also the matter of domain. Is it ethical to allow to copyright research pertaining to a life-saving drug? Or a piece of software that can save billions of dollars for a developing country?
Is having food unethical because there are starving people in the world? These moral questions are not specific to copyright. Allowing only "non-commercial infringement" would not solve the problem, as at one point or another every commercial licencer has to sell to consumers to get paid. At the end of the day, the consumers are the last in the chain for every work, as they are the only ones providing money for the industry.
For example, if Bill Gates finishes designing his reactor then we could build one on the Moon, and use the uranium there to fuel it. The reactor would power the station and also generate enriched plutonium in the process, wich then could be shot down to Earth using mass driver system to shoot it back to Earth, thus having no need for fuel. Current railguns can already reach the lunar escape velocity, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Well, if ignorance is indeed an excuse in this case, than it's true that politicians should not be liable.
The use of undefined words in legalspeak is a neat trick so they can tweak the law every time to suit their needs.
Apparently Hawking is worried of our resources running out, but mining other celesatial bodies can be done without colonizing them. And even if we did colonize them, exponential growth would not be feasible indefinitely. I believe it's much easier to change our ways than to colonize space.
What I never understood is that if only a selected number of few can fit in the mines than how will they breed? I mean, the mines are already full.
Steganography would still work.
While some people laugh at France's [1] conviction that art should be sponsored by the government,
There are two different things here. First, that ISPs are being taxed, and second, that the money is being put into funding music. I believe that taxing the Internet causes much more harm to the economy than the money that can be gained.
to me it does look like a more ethical alternative to copyright.
I fail to see how copyright is unethical. Sure, lifetime+70 years is as unethical as it can get, but that's problem with the implementation, not with the idea of copyright. I do think that reasonable copyright laws would be much better than no copyright at all. The problem with people paying flat tax and art being sponsored 100% by the government is that art would become independent of the people's demands.
I would much rather pay a flat art tax and not be censored on the Internet than endure any more copyright legislation.
So how is that working out for you with HADOPI and three strike laws?
in 10 years the usa will be disconnected from the internet.. at least; the free internet the rest of the world will enjoy.
The problem is that the majority of the Internet infrastructure is inside the US.
We have good reason to believe that the Universe expanded from a much smaller initial state. Thus, the homogenous matter/antimatter regions that were created early could become very big, maybe bigger than our visible Universe. But even if not, galaxies very rarely collide, and even when they do, it's only a "collision" in a gravitational sense, it's very unlikely that two stars actually hit each other.
Companies don't own a name. They own a name PLUS a TLD. If they had some magical right to all TLDs after they have registered one would make TLDs pretty useless. And would you care to elaborate exactly how a similarly named .xxx site is going to "damage the names" of businesses? I doubt that their potential customers will be searching for services on the .xxx domain.
When is the last time you paid attention to a TLD? When is the last time *anyone* paid attention to a TLD?
When you set your Google search preferences you will want to search in languages you understand.
The radiation of an antimatter star would be the exact same as a matter star. There is no way of knowing that our visible Universe is mainly matter. That the Universe is made mostly of matter is a myth not really backed up.
There are lossless fractal image encodings, the trick is that you have to find a fractal wich matches the image up to its resolution which is possible.
Exactly as predicted? Supernova theory is pretty much just speculation, with half of the models saying that the core should collapse without an explosion and the other half saying differently. We don't know enough about supernovas to precisely describe them. And we know even less about neutrinos.
Which is why I never understood why does the US put so much energy trying to build a rocket defence system. Do they really want a nuclear war? Or is it just another bluff like SDI?
This rocket seems somewhat less aggressive, as I don't think it is capable of preventing a retaliation. Even if it manages to destroy the rocket sites, there are nukes on planes, subs and Russia even has nuclear trains.