You dont have proof we landed on the moon just like you dont have proof that flying saucers exist, Pictures and Video are not proof. I also do not think its wise to blindly trust the government, this includes NASA.
Come to your own conclusions, if you think its a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist than they exist. I think its a realistitc possibility that they exist, whos making them is debateable, but I believe the pictures and video footage, I also dont believe millions of people would lie.
Now, as far as landing on the moon, I think it happened, not because I actually went on the moon but because I think the videos and pictures are authentic, and I think its realistic that we could have had the technology to do it at the time.
Flying saucers are real simply because our own government had prototype spy crafts which were flying saucers, its also realistic to believe the soviets could have had secret weapons designed to spy on us which just happened to be saucer shaped. The far out theory is that Aliens could be controlling them, this is possible too although much more difficult to prove, theres not as much evidence but its possible.
Ultimately the odds say flying saucers exist, theres evidence to prove it, the more far out the theory the less evidence you have and the more you have to trust the word of people. I do not like to draw my conclusions from the word of people, therefore I cannot say Aliens are controlling flying saucers, I can only say flying saucers exist.
How accurate are the documents? Are the documents 100% complete, or are parts of it blacked out?
Until we have these documents in complete form theres no way to know, I've seen documents straight from the government mentioning saucers, and I've seen documents from the government saying weather balloons, and then theres documents which talk about top secret military projects.
Ultimately the government will never tell the public if they saw a UFO, the people wouldnt be able to handle it. So if there are UFOs, the best thing the gov could do to protect us is not tell us anything about it until they completely understand what they are dealing with.
If they see lights or saucers and they dont know what the hell it is, dont expect them to ever admit to it until they know what it is.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Roads arent maintained with tax dollars they are maintained via tolls and tickets.
I suppose if you do something bad online like copyright infrigement you'd get a ticket.
What this would do is drive the price down so low that it will be almost free, the only people who will pay will be people who get tickets or who want high speed acceas
look to different people, different things matter, where you live in rural America a car is the most important thing, where I live in the urban city, having a computer is the most important thing.
Everyone here has a computer, and the people who dont have access to them. People give out email addresses as much as they do telephone numbers, and everyone uses their website for their resume.
We can treat the internet like we treat roads. Let the gov and taxes pay to built the network and then use our wireless connections and software to use the free network. It can work, the only problem would be reliability. I think the quality and reliability is something only an ISP can provide.
I would use an ISP for business, for commerce and so on, but I'd use the free internet to surf the web and do stuff like slashdot.
I suggest you do your research, all of these things I mentioned are a possibility, right now NASA is using alot of this technology I mentioned to send robotic probes up into space.
I cant believe ignorant people come on slashdot thinking they know about technology, then find out they dont know shit about nano technology, or robotics and suddenly its all science fiction.
Hydrogen fuel cells allow us to do what you talk about right now. Essentially they'd run on air itself, the energy produced from the air turning into water and back into air again provides almost unlimited energy.
We also have thermonuclear fusion, which provides almost unlimited energy as well, but its not as safe or easy to use in its current form. We also have organic energy sources, which provide energy.
The problem is not energy, the problem is will, our big businesses dont think its profitable for them to build tons of robots and give us cheap energy.
The world would change if we developed robots and had them do harvesting and other jobs, suddenly free food, water, etc could be provided. This wont happen at least not in Capitalist countries, perhaps it will happen in China.
First you can make music at home on your home studio, using a computer, some hardware and some software, you dont need studio time unless you want to produce a movie soundtrack but for 128bit rate mp3 you cant tell the difference.
I'm a musician, I know musicians, most of the musicians I know play music outside for free and people drop money into their bucket.
Open Source programming was a success so we dont need Microsoft.
Show me an industry where theres no free works and you'll have a point.
This technology is already in the works and this is one of the main reasons why I'm against copyright.
Its actually beginning to slow progress down, Nano Technology can never work in a world with copyright, imagine someone patenting everything and selling patents, it would be absolutely ridiculous for us to pay for everything when we can produce everything for free.
by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)"If you built an inferior Ferrari lookalike and marketed it as a Ferrari, that would be damaging to Ferrari, whose efforts to develop a quality product have resulted in a valued brand name. If you did your own R&D, invested your own money in producing an original and attractive design, and then built a motor car of comparable specs, you can sell it for whatever you wish. But then, of course, you won't be able to sell it for $1000 any more than Ferrari could, because you, too, would have had to put something into developing it before you reaped the profits.
Ferrari have every right to offer their cars for sale at $100,000. If someone thinks that's a fair price, they can agree to buy one. If not, they're under no obligation. There is no price fixing there."
And this is the point, alot of people actually care more about the auto manufacterers than about themselves when the only purpose for auto manufacterers existing are to supply us with cars, when we have unlimited supply of cars why would we need them anymore?
" Just because you physically can check a CD out of the library and copy it does not mean that it is legal to do so. Similarly, just because a car is sitting idling and unlocked does not mean that you can get in it and drive it away for your own use. "
"Nobody is really "sharing" as we traditionally think of the term. Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "
Ah, so me going and driving away in an unlocked car is sharing! According to Websters online dictionary, stealing is. "1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice" Sharing is "1 : to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION -- usually used with out or with 2 a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common"
This means hes playing with words to confuse the public into believing stealing is sharing, and sharing is stealing.
So? why does that matter? When businesses go down, new businesses hire more workers, those problems you mention are only temp problems.
Look, if Microsoft went under right now, it would do more for the tech industry in creating jobs than any single action or tax cut.
Microsoft is a monopoly, they hold a vast amount of capital and this company never innovates. Microsoft based on proper economics should be going out of business now, Linux is a cheaper better product, Apple's OSX is a more expensive better product, Microsoft has no market, they have no innovation, they arent the best at quality or price, why do they keep winning? Because they use illegal tactics.
If Microsoft were to fade away right now no one would care, Redhat and other Linux companies would get increased business, progress would speed up as innovative companies take their place, such as Apple, Redhat, Suse, etc.
Open Source vs Close Source, Open Source represents the Ferrari copying we talked about before, Closed Source represents the Ferrari company.
The drivers and consumers benefit from the cheaper prices and increased innovation which happens when the Ferrari design goes open source.
The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows, Linux has advanced this quickly because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.
Redhat is profiting, and other companies are trying to profit, they sell services, and the programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.
This does benefit the user because we get better software, the wheel isnt constantly reinvented, and software development progress happens faster.
This is why KDE and Gnome development has happened so quickly.
Programmers create code, the code is free, the action of creating code is sold. How complicated is that?
Hey I'm not saying people should not be paid to produce information. I'm saying once engineers create a design and get paid for creating it, the design is free.
Then the car makers use this design to make better cars, the makers of the designs get paid to make designs, their reputation allows them to keep work because if they make good or popular designs car companies will pay them to make more.
The only difference is no one will own what they produce.
freedom and freestuff are mutual and benefit both parties. You need the freedom to get free stuff in the first place. Joe sixpack may not understand the internet or why it was built, but he knows theres lots of free music and movies on it and he likes it.
Thats all someone like him needs to know, but because he likes this freedom he will not want to be robbed of that freedom anytime soon.
Its all a matter of marketing, stuff like Gnutalla, Waste, and other P2P filesharing apps introduce the concept of sharing to the average joe.
The Philosophy of free software is spreading mainly because of filesharing, gnutella, winamp, and applications which take this freedom to the masses in areas which they care about, instead of geeky source code being free, they get free music, but the same theory of information should be free applies to both. At some point it will click, in the same way it clicks for a person to understand capitalism allows them to eat and that theres no better place to live other than the USA, you may not understand this at first, but eventually everything makes sense, you begin to understand how much freedom you have in the USA.
We need more people like you to explain the point of view that the majority of people have INCLUDING artists.
I make music so I could classify myself as an Artist, if I were given the choice of if I'd prefer to make a small amount of money selling CDs, or have all music on file sharing networks be free, which one benefits me the artist more? Having access to more music because this helps me become a better musician, and most musicians are fans of Music.
Now, would I still pay for music? Yes, but Im not going to pay for no reason, people need to give me reasons to buy their CD, I dont just mean one good song, they need to actually have a complete product worth buying.
Like video games, I never pirate video games, because it comes in a nice case with a manual and other features useful to me to make it worth buying, this may include tech support or in the case of RPGs, saving my character on their servers.
It ultimately comes down to what the people value more, having the ability to share files, or having the ability to own them.
Slashdot Mirror
You dont have proof we landed on the moon just like you dont have proof that flying saucers exist, Pictures and Video are not proof. I also do not think its wise to blindly trust the government, this includes NASA.
Come to your own conclusions, if you think its a realistic possibility that flying saucers exist than they exist. I think its a realistitc possibility that they exist, whos making them is debateable, but I believe the pictures and video footage, I also dont believe millions of people would lie.
Now, as far as landing on the moon, I think it happened, not because I actually went on the moon but because I think the videos and pictures are authentic, and I think its realistic that we could have had the technology to do it at the time.
Flying saucers are real simply because our own government had prototype spy crafts which were flying saucers, its also realistic to believe the soviets could have had secret weapons designed to spy on us which just happened to be saucer shaped. The far out theory is that Aliens could be controlling them, this is possible too although much more difficult to prove, theres not as much evidence but its possible.
Ultimately the odds say flying saucers exist, theres evidence to prove it, the more far out the theory the less evidence you have and the more you have to trust the word of people. I do not like to draw my conclusions from the word of people, therefore I cannot say Aliens are controlling flying saucers, I can only say flying saucers exist.
How accurate are the documents? Are the documents 100% complete, or are parts of it blacked out?
Until we have these documents in complete form theres no way to know, I've seen documents straight from the government mentioning saucers, and I've seen documents from the government saying weather balloons, and then theres documents which talk about top secret military projects.
Ultimately the government will never tell the public if they saw a UFO, the people wouldnt be able to handle it. So if there are UFOs, the best thing the gov could do to protect us is not tell us anything about it until they completely understand what they are dealing with.
If they see lights or saucers and they dont know what the hell it is, dont expect them to ever admit to it until they know what it is.
Do you still work for Redhat?
Imagine if you had to pay $150 a month just to go to work on the roads, would you like that?
Roads arent maintained with tax dollars they are maintained via tolls and tickets.
I suppose if you do something bad online like copyright infrigement you'd get a ticket.
What this would do is drive the price down so low that it will be almost free, the only people who will pay will be people who get tickets or who want high speed acceas
I dont have a car,
look to different people, different things matter, where you live in rural America a car is the most important thing, where I live in the urban city, having a computer is the most important thing.
Everyone here has a computer, and the people who dont have access to them. People give out email addresses as much as they do telephone numbers, and everyone uses their website for their resume.
No the network isnt free. We all pay to built it, and then its free. You know, like a road.
We can treat the internet like we treat roads. Let the gov and taxes pay to built the network and then use our wireless connections and software to use the free network. It can work, the only problem would be reliability. I think the quality and reliability is something only an ISP can provide.
I would use an ISP for business, for commerce and so on, but I'd use the free internet to surf the web and do stuff like slashdot.
I think theres room for both.
We could use P2P wireless and it could work. Its just a matter of us deciding its what we want to do and writing the code to do it.
Yes we have air powered engines and devices. Need proof? Here
A nitrogen powered car.
I suggest you do your research, all of these things I mentioned are a possibility, right now NASA is using alot of this technology I mentioned to send robotic probes up into space.
I cant believe ignorant people come on slashdot thinking they know about technology, then find out they dont know shit about nano technology, or robotics and suddenly its all science fiction.
Since you dont believe me, Here you go dumb person, read How Hydrogren Fuel Cells Work
This will help people like you who think they know everything.
Do you know how it works? I suggest you learn about what you are talking about but hydrogen can be created from the air itself.
You dont MAKE hydrogen just like you dont have to make water or air both which have hydrogen in it.
You use the hydrogen which exists.
Hydrogen fuel cells allow us to do what you talk about right now. Essentially they'd run on air itself, the energy produced from the air turning into water and back into air again provides almost unlimited energy.
We also have thermonuclear fusion, which provides almost unlimited energy as well, but its not as safe or easy to use in its current form. We also have organic energy sources, which provide energy.
The problem is not energy, the problem is will, our big businesses dont think its profitable for them to build tons of robots and give us cheap energy.
The world would change if we developed robots and had them do harvesting and other jobs, suddenly free food, water, etc could be provided. This wont happen at least not in Capitalist countries, perhaps it will happen in China.
The website industry including this site was started by amateurs who did it for fun, it became popular and alot of people got rich.
What makes you think musicians cant make money in the same way websites do?
First you can make music at home on your home studio, using a computer, some hardware and some software, you dont need studio time unless you want to produce a movie soundtrack but for 128bit rate mp3 you cant tell the difference.
I'm a musician, I know musicians, most of the musicians I know play music outside for free and people drop money into their bucket.
Open Source programming was a success so we dont need Microsoft.
Show me an industry where theres no free works and you'll have a point.
This technology is already in the works and this is one of the main reasons why I'm against copyright.
Its actually beginning to slow progress down, Nano Technology can never work in a world with copyright, imagine someone patenting everything and selling patents, it would be absolutely ridiculous for us to pay for everything when we can produce everything for free.
by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) "If you built an inferior Ferrari lookalike and marketed it as a Ferrari, that would be damaging to Ferrari, whose efforts to develop a quality product have resulted in a valued brand name. If you did your own R&D, invested your own money in producing an original and attractive design, and then built a motor car of comparable specs, you can sell it for whatever you wish. But then, of course, you won't be able to sell it for $1000 any more than Ferrari could, because you, too, would have had to put something into developing it before you reaped the profits.
Ferrari have every right to offer their cars for sale at $100,000. If someone thinks that's a fair price, they can agree to buy one. If not, they're under no obligation. There is no price fixing there."
And this is the point, alot of people actually care more about the auto manufacterers than about themselves when the only purpose for auto manufacterers existing are to supply us with cars, when we have unlimited supply of cars why would we need them anymore?
" Just because you physically can check a CD out of the library and copy it does not mean that it is legal to do so. Similarly, just because a car is sitting idling and unlocked does not mean that you can get in it and drive it away for your own use. "
"Nobody is really "sharing" as we traditionally think of the term. Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "
Ah, so me going and driving away in an unlocked car is sharing!
According to Websters online dictionary, stealing is.
"1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice"
Sharing is "1 : to divide and distribute in shares : APPORTION -- usually used with out or with
2 a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common"
This means hes playing with words to confuse the public into believing stealing is sharing, and sharing is stealing.
Nice try Matt, but the dictionary doesnt lie.
So? why does that matter? When businesses go down, new businesses hire more workers, those problems you mention are only temp problems.
Look, if Microsoft went under right now, it would do more for the tech industry in creating jobs than any single action or tax cut.
Microsoft is a monopoly, they hold a vast amount of capital and this company never innovates. Microsoft based on proper economics should be going out of business now, Linux is a cheaper better product, Apple's OSX is a more expensive better product, Microsoft has no market, they have no innovation, they arent the best at quality or price, why do they keep winning? Because they use illegal tactics.
If Microsoft were to fade away right now no one would care, Redhat and other Linux companies would get increased business, progress would speed up as innovative companies take their place, such as Apple, Redhat, Suse, etc.
Open Source vs Close Source, Open Source represents the Ferrari copying we talked about before, Closed Source represents the Ferrari company.
The drivers and consumers benefit from the cheaper prices and increased innovation which happens when the Ferrari design goes open source.
But you forget the purpose of Capitalism, its not about the companies, its about the progress.
Why does it matter if the ferrari company goes out of business?
The information as a service model is better for consumers and it is proven. Check Linux vs Windows, Linux has advanced this quickly because information has been shared between competiting companies, Redhat, Suse, and others.
Redhat is profiting, and other companies are trying to profit, they sell services, and the programmers are paid to produce code, not to sell it.
This does benefit the user because we get better software, the wheel isnt constantly reinvented, and software development progress happens faster.
This is why KDE and Gnome development has happened so quickly.
Programmers create code, the code is free, the action of creating code is sold. How complicated is that?
Hey I'm not saying people should not be paid to produce information. I'm saying once engineers create a design and get paid for creating it, the design is free.
Then the car makers use this design to make better cars, the makers of the designs get paid to make designs, their reputation allows them to keep work because if they make good or popular designs car companies will pay them to make more.
The only difference is no one will own what they produce.
freedom and freestuff are mutual and benefit both parties. You need the freedom to get free stuff in the first place. Joe sixpack may not understand the internet or why it was built, but he knows theres lots of free music and movies on it and he likes it.
Thats all someone like him needs to know, but because he likes this freedom he will not want to be robbed of that freedom anytime soon.
Its all a matter of marketing, stuff like Gnutalla, Waste, and other P2P filesharing apps introduce the concept of sharing to the average joe.
The Philosophy of free software is spreading mainly because of filesharing, gnutella, winamp, and applications which take this freedom to the masses in areas which they care about, instead of geeky source code being free, they get free music, but the same theory of information should be free applies to both. At some point it will click, in the same way it clicks for a person to understand capitalism allows them to eat and that theres no better place to live other than the USA, you may not understand this at first, but eventually everything makes sense, you begin to understand how much freedom you have in the USA.
Perhaps build something like this into Nullsofts Waste network?
Anyone interest in trying to do this, respond to this post.
Perfectly put!
We need more people like you to explain the point of view that the majority of people have INCLUDING artists.
I make music so I could classify myself as an Artist, if I were given the choice of if I'd prefer to make a small amount of money selling CDs, or have all music on file sharing networks be free, which one benefits me the artist more? Having access to more music because this helps me become a better musician, and most musicians are fans of Music.
Now, would I still pay for music? Yes, but Im not going to pay for no reason, people need to give me reasons to buy their CD, I dont just mean one good song, they need to actually have a complete product worth buying.
Like video games, I never pirate video games, because it comes in a nice case with a manual and other features useful to me to make it worth buying, this may include tech support or in the case of RPGs, saving my character on their servers.
It ultimately comes down to what the people value more, having the ability to share files, or having the ability to own them.