Be sure to read the temperature of the gasoline too. Underground storage should remain ~55-60 degrees F. Not only will the volume of the gasoline change slightly as it warms, but the cold will cause the container to contract a little while you fill it, unless you can find a store selling gas cans made from Invar. Calibrating this whole setup will be a lengthy process.
It is never too late to leave the other guy looking like the only one who is gaming the system. If you want to stop the game, the first thing you have to do is quit playing.
"not likely. If everyone refrained from violating existing traffic laws, they'd invent new ones to nail you with. Lower the speed limits arbitrarily (the classic speedtrap - cross the town line, and suddenly the speed limit is 30mph lower), set up arcane regulations on parking (e.g, no parking in this spot from 9AM to 11AM on Fridays, the adjacent spot is fine except on Mondays from noon-2PM, that sort of thing), anything to get the revenue."
I'd like to hear the local Chamber of Commerce's reaction to that sort of parking regulations. Generally they're the ones who want the parking reg.s, so that someone doesn't dump a car in front of their door all day every day and make it harder for actual customers to come to the shop.
As for the other, see, this is exactly what I want to prevent. There are good reasons for most rules, but if e.g. people treat traffic laws as a game then eventually the city will begin to think, fine, if this is gonna be a game then we can play too, and guess what? the city is bigger than any one citizen so who's gonna lose? Squelching disrespect for reasonable rules makes it harder to argue for unreasonable ones. And it really undercuts the "one law was bad, therefore all laws are bad" crowd.
Exactly. Use as a (sub-)master for making further copies is one of the uses which are denied to you, unless the owner grants you license to do that.
Copyright law doesn't lay out a definitive list of what you can do with another's property; it initializes the list with a few commonsense exceptions and then says, for more rights apply to the holder of the copyright.
Selling or giving a legally obtained copy is not distribution. Making more copies and conveying them to others is.
It makes no sense whatsoever. *Incoming* port 25 requests would be kind of pointless if the client can never find you, but blockage of *outgoing* port 25 requests means you can't send mail except through the ISP's email-laundering service. It works to curb the problematic behavior, but it's a bit like curbing vandalism by putting *every citizen* in jail preemptively.
All you're doing is extending the network of machines which cannot deliver mail. As soon as a bunch of blocked machines contact an unblocked one, it gets noticed and blocked. At some point you have to be able to connect() to port 25 or you don't deliver. It's much more effective to just write off the blocked systems and find new unblocked ones to simply get the mail out (until they are blocked) than to set up a complicated relay network that winds up doing the same thing using much more bandwidth.
Exactly. Neither is the "material or monetary worth" of a thing necessarily identical to its cost. The difference is called "profit" (or, occasionally, "loss"), and it's the reason that people are willing to trade at all.
I realize it's fashionable to connect "profit" to the same neuron that handles "mass murder", "conformity", and other abhorrent and intolerable acts, but without it we'd all still be scratching in the dirt with sticks to try to grow enough food to keep most of our kids from starving to death.
You are absolutely right on all counts. "Loose" may be used as a verb, meaning to set loose or set free. Come to think of it, "free" gets the same treatment. The difference is that people still use "free" as a verb, but "loose" hasn't seen much use in that sense for many years, at least in the U.S.
And if you think that looks weird, try another synonym: enlarge. In modern times I think only Christopher Stasheff has tried that one on an audience.
But none of them mean the same thing as "lose", meaning to mislay or be deprived of.
Ya know, George O. Smith wrote a story on that very idea (a machine to make exact duplicates of physical objects). In his story the widespread use of the machine completely obliterated the global economy, and people had to figure out a new one -- human society very nearly collapsed. I find his story more believable than yours. The guys who build the cars would certainly care if you could rip a copy of their work product for free, and so would their employers.
Well, gee, you could cut off the stealth taxes really easily -- just follow the rules. I've been driving since about 1973 and never been accused of a moving violation. (I did get *one* parking ticket in all that time. That's when I learned that my parking permit for the Indianapolis campus doesn't mean squat at the Bloomington campus of the same university. )-:
Anyway, if every driver would observe the posted speed limit, park according to the rules, and stop when he's supposed to stop, states and municipalities would be making $0.00 from those fines. Feel free to show us how it's done.
I don't recall seeing that the kid was scheduled to be shot. Unless he settles out of court, it has to go before a judge, who could just tell him that that was bad and not to do it again. The actual punishment remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, the law says that a person who creates something owns it and has the right to limit who uses it and how he uses it.
There is no need for evidence of intent to upload. The act of copying is itself a violation of the studio's copyright. He could have intended to take the tape home and bury it in the backyard forever and never ever watch it, but that has nothing to do with whether the studio has the legal right to prevent him making a copy in the first place.
Establishing rules and then not enforcing them harms everyone by weakening society. Today you're thumbing your nose at the rule against violating some studio's copyright by making a crummy re-recording of a movie; tomorrow you're sending 200,000 troops off to kick the stuffing out of some country on the theory that just maybe they have something that might endanger your own country. Think about it.
I think I got all of that, but it still trips my "putting all of our eggs in one basket" alarm. I don't like designs that demand choices between ignoring a problem and risking *everything* to solve it. If your buggy breaks, at worst your comrades still have the fixed base, but if your mobile base breaks then everybody dies. Having only one of a critical resource is not safe.
Anyway, if they do build the thing, I hope that Mission Control uses "The Hut of Baba Yaga" as the first-day wake-up music.
Are you filling it with *imperial gallons*, perhaps?:-)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that EPA estimates really are wildly inaccurate. Are they at least *systematically* inaccurate? That is, if EPA rates vehicle X at 40mpg and vehicle Y at 20mpg, and normal drivers actually get 20mpg from their Xs, does that mean that they actually get roughly 10mpg from their Ys? If there's a systematic error then you can still use the numbers to comparison-shop, which is quite useful.
Hmmm, let me get this straight: instead of the risk of losing one rover and having to double up, plus the much smaller risk of losing both rovers and having four people *perhaps* unable to hike back to base, we'd prefer to lose the *entire base with all its resources* and leave our guys with nothing but the consumables in their suits (presuming they got out safely).
I'll happily forward any and all UCE, gratis, to someone who can actually nail the pests. I usually send a notice to the offending system's owners when I think someone's host has been hijacked. My typical experience is that nobody wants to hear about it.:-{
I suspect we'll see more results from private action, now that someone has been foolish enough to crack into some sites with expensive reputations to maintain in order to distribute their junkmail-mirror trojans. Financiers are dangerous dudes, and the damage from the latest horror goes way, way beyond that of the typical defacement prank.
There *will* be abuses. We can hope they'll be few and readily corrected. Better, we can work to see to it that they'll be few and readily corrected, to correct the behavior of those who can be corrected, and to dismiss the rest.
There *will* be false identifications. See above.
Please don't go around expecting information systems to operate perfectly. These same problems have existed since the days when records were impressed into wet clay with pointy sticks. They are *fundamental* because they are failings in ourselves, not our tools. The best we can expect from our tools is that they help good workers to do better work, and help us to detect unsuitable workers.
The proper question for this system is whether the inconveniences inevitably caused by having it outweigh the inconveniences inevitably caused by *not* having it.
The "national security" bit does not apply. The security guys will just get gear which works on frequencies that they are allowed not to share with anyone. Don't expect them to be much help in sorting out the cacophony you anticipate.
And a lot of the DP taking place at an airport happens at fixed locations. You can always run more cable if it's necessary to avoid disrupting business. These days a fair amount of wireless gear goes in because it appears to be cheaper than pulling cable, but if you later find that there's too much interference then the cable starts to look like a good deal. Private media cost more because, sometimes, they are worth it.
Who gave the FCC all this power? Whichever of your ancestors were living in the U.S. in 1934, that's who. If you don't like that, put together a majority and you can take it back.
I'm not so sure I'd like having to buy a Fox TV and an NBC TV and a PBS TV just to continue watching all my favorite shows, though, so I may choose not to join your movement.
The logical difficulty stems from trying to treat "what you agreed to" as if it were "what makes sense". We frequently accept restrictions on our behavior which are poorly-thought-out, or at least poorly-worded. Then we discover the problem, but it's too late to avoid it because we agreed to it. Our only recourse at that point is to renegotiate something more sensible.
Slashdot Mirror
Be sure to read the temperature of the gasoline too. Underground storage should remain ~55-60 degrees F. Not only will the volume of the gasoline change slightly as it warms, but the cold will cause the container to contract a little while you fill it, unless you can find a store selling gas cans made from Invar. Calibrating this whole setup will be a lengthy process.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
It is never too late to leave the other guy looking like the only one who is gaming the system. If you want to stop the game, the first thing you have to do is quit playing.
"not likely. If everyone refrained from violating existing traffic laws, they'd invent new ones to nail you with. Lower the speed limits arbitrarily (the classic speedtrap - cross the town line, and suddenly the speed limit is 30mph lower), set up arcane regulations on parking (e.g, no parking in this spot from 9AM to 11AM on Fridays, the adjacent spot is fine except on Mondays from noon-2PM, that sort of thing), anything to get the revenue."
I'd like to hear the local Chamber of Commerce's reaction to that sort of parking regulations. Generally they're the ones who want the parking reg.s, so that someone doesn't dump a car in front of their door all day every day and make it harder for actual customers to come to the shop.
As for the other, see, this is exactly what I want to prevent. There are good reasons for most rules, but if e.g. people treat traffic laws as a game then eventually the city will begin to think, fine, if this is gonna be a game then we can play too, and guess what? the city is bigger than any one citizen so who's gonna lose? Squelching disrespect for reasonable rules makes it harder to argue for unreasonable ones. And it really undercuts the "one law was bad, therefore all laws are bad" crowd.
Exactly. Use as a (sub-)master for making further copies is one of the uses which are denied to you, unless the owner grants you license to do that.
Copyright law doesn't lay out a definitive list of what you can do with another's property; it initializes the list with a few commonsense exceptions and then says, for more rights apply to the holder of the copyright.
Selling or giving a legally obtained copy is not distribution. Making more copies and conveying them to others is.
It makes no sense whatsoever. *Incoming* port 25 requests would be kind of pointless if the client can never find you, but blockage of *outgoing* port 25 requests means you can't send mail except through the ISP's email-laundering service. It works to curb the problematic behavior, but it's a bit like curbing vandalism by putting *every citizen* in jail preemptively.
All you're doing is extending the network of machines which cannot deliver mail. As soon as a bunch of blocked machines contact an unblocked one, it gets noticed and blocked. At some point you have to be able to connect() to port 25 or you don't deliver. It's much more effective to just write off the blocked systems and find new unblocked ones to simply get the mail out (until they are blocked) than to set up a complicated relay network that winds up doing the same thing using much more bandwidth.
Hear, hear. Kudos to Comcast for doing this the right way:
:-P
1. Identify the source of the problem
2. Attack the source with a well-fitted solution.
They could have gone with the typical "attack legitimate customers and hope you hit the bad guys too" approach.
Exactly. Neither is the "material or monetary worth" of a thing necessarily identical to its cost. The difference is called "profit" (or, occasionally, "loss"), and it's the reason that people are willing to trade at all.
I realize it's fashionable to connect "profit" to the same neuron that handles "mass murder", "conformity", and other abhorrent and intolerable acts, but without it we'd all still be scratching in the dirt with sticks to try to grow enough food to keep most of our kids from starving to death.
The true value of certain products is whatever most people are willing to part with in order to have them. See "market".
You are absolutely right on all counts. "Loose" may be used as a verb, meaning to set loose or set free. Come to think of it, "free" gets the same treatment. The difference is that people still use "free" as a verb, but "loose" hasn't seen much use in that sense for many years, at least in the U.S.
And if you think that looks weird, try another synonym: enlarge. In modern times I think only Christopher Stasheff has tried that one on an audience.
But none of them mean the same thing as "lose", meaning to mislay or be deprived of.
Ya know, George O. Smith wrote a story on that very idea (a machine to make exact duplicates of physical objects). In his story the widespread use of the machine completely obliterated the global economy, and people had to figure out a new one -- human society very nearly collapsed. I find his story more believable than yours. The guys who build the cars would certainly care if you could rip a copy of their work product for free, and so would their employers.
Expecting others to follow some common rules that you also follow would be a sign of being a member of one's society rather than a parasite on it.
Well, gee, you could cut off the stealth taxes really easily -- just follow the rules. I've been driving since about 1973 and never been accused of a moving violation. (I did get *one* parking ticket in all that time. That's when I learned that my parking permit for the Indianapolis campus doesn't mean squat at the Bloomington campus of the same university. )-:
Anyway, if every driver would observe the posted speed limit, park according to the rules, and stop when he's supposed to stop, states and municipalities would be making $0.00 from those fines. Feel free to show us how it's done.
I don't recall seeing that the kid was scheduled to be shot. Unless he settles out of court, it has to go before a judge, who could just tell him that that was bad and not to do it again. The actual punishment remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, the law says that a person who creates something owns it and has the right to limit who uses it and how he uses it.
There is no need for evidence of intent to upload. The act of copying is itself a violation of the studio's copyright. He could have intended to take the tape home and bury it in the backyard forever and never ever watch it, but that has nothing to do with whether the studio has the legal right to prevent him making a copy in the first place.
Establishing rules and then not enforcing them harms everyone by weakening society. Today you're thumbing your nose at the rule against violating some studio's copyright by making a crummy re-recording of a movie; tomorrow you're sending 200,000 troops off to kick the stuffing out of some country on the theory that just maybe they have something that might endanger your own country. Think about it.
I think I got all of that, but it still trips my "putting all of our eggs in one basket" alarm. I don't like designs that demand choices between ignoring a problem and risking *everything* to solve it. If your buggy breaks, at worst your comrades still have the fixed base, but if your mobile base breaks then everybody dies. Having only one of a critical resource is not safe.
Anyway, if they do build the thing, I hope that Mission Control uses "The Hut of Baba Yaga" as the first-day wake-up music.
Are you filling it with *imperial gallons*, perhaps? :-)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that EPA estimates really are wildly inaccurate. Are they at least *systematically* inaccurate? That is, if EPA rates vehicle X at 40mpg and vehicle Y at 20mpg, and normal drivers actually get 20mpg from their Xs, does that mean that they actually get roughly 10mpg from their Ys? If there's a systematic error then you can still use the numbers to comparison-shop, which is quite useful.
Hmmm, let me get this straight: instead of the risk of losing one rover and having to double up, plus the much smaller risk of losing both rovers and having four people *perhaps* unable to hike back to base, we'd prefer to lose the *entire base with all its resources* and leave our guys with nothing but the consumables in their suits (presuming they got out safely).
Hmmm.
I'll happily forward any and all UCE, gratis, to someone who can actually nail the pests. I usually send a notice to the offending system's owners when I think someone's host has been hijacked. My typical experience is that nobody wants to hear about it. :-{
I suspect we'll see more results from private action, now that someone has been foolish enough to crack into some sites with expensive reputations to maintain in order to distribute their junkmail-mirror trojans. Financiers are dangerous dudes, and the damage from the latest horror goes way, way beyond that of the typical defacement prank.
There *will* be abuses. We can hope they'll be few and readily corrected. Better, we can work to see to it that they'll be few and readily corrected, to correct the behavior of those who can be corrected, and to dismiss the rest.
There *will* be false identifications. See above.
Please don't go around expecting information systems to operate perfectly. These same problems have existed since the days when records were impressed into wet clay with pointy sticks. They are *fundamental* because they are failings in ourselves, not our tools. The best we can expect from our tools is that they help good workers to do better work, and help us to detect unsuitable workers.
The proper question for this system is whether the inconveniences inevitably caused by having it outweigh the inconveniences inevitably caused by *not* having it.
The "national security" bit does not apply. The security guys will just get gear which works on frequencies that they are allowed not to share with anyone. Don't expect them to be much help in sorting out the cacophony you anticipate.
And a lot of the DP taking place at an airport happens at fixed locations. You can always run more cable if it's necessary to avoid disrupting business. These days a fair amount of wireless gear goes in because it appears to be cheaper than pulling cable, but if you later find that there's too much interference then the cable starts to look like a good deal. Private media cost more because, sometimes, they are worth it.
Who gave the FCC all this power? Whichever of your ancestors were living in the U.S. in 1934, that's who. If you don't like that, put together a majority and you can take it back.
I'm not so sure I'd like having to buy a Fox TV and an NBC TV and a PBS TV just to continue watching all my favorite shows, though, so I may choose not to join your movement.
The logical difficulty stems from trying to treat "what you agreed to" as if it were "what makes sense". We frequently accept restrictions on our behavior which are poorly-thought-out, or at least poorly-worded. Then we discover the problem, but it's too late to avoid it because we agreed to it. Our only recourse at that point is to renegotiate something more sensible.