What certainty is there that these planets even Have ammonia or methane? If they just collalesced from could of hydrogen, and there's been no nuclear burning, then carbon and oxygen can't even exists, much less more complex molecules like ammonia and methane.
To boost your point, one thing people commonly don't realize is that ANY concept of life, no matter how different from life on Earth, would require complex, yet stable patterns. But this sort of thing requires materials- namely- complex molecules. Even if these planetoids WERE violent and random, nothing would happen, because they probably don't have anything more complex than hydrogen, and maybe helium. Without nuclear fusion (which is exactly what these things lack) those molecules can't really do anything other than bump into each other. Life on earth is possible mainly because we have atoms like carbon, oxyegen, and nitrogen, which allow all sort of complex configurations, ranging from simple protiens to DNA. But unless these balls are castoffs from a supernova, it's doubtful that they'd have many, if any, of these heavier atoms. So even if conditions WEREN'T terrible for life as WE know it- they're still terrible for ANY life.
math isn't a "thing" that can be wrong. It's a representation of abstract concepts like number, and while these founding assumptions can be wrong, math itself is internally consistent and correct just as an abstract systm on its own. We can put digits in the wrong place, but we can't be "wrong" about the existence of digits. There is no such real thing as a digit. It's a concept we created, and defined it's parameters ourselves. It could indeed turn out that our math is a poor way to DESCRIBE what goes on in the universe, but's an entirely different problem.
If these extra solar planets were really never born from a star, and are just collected clouds, then they might have another difference from Jupiter: no heavy elements. Instead of Jupiter's mix (though it still is mostly hydrogen right) wouldn't these "planets" basically just be big balls of hydrogren period? I mean, you need star fusion to create anything beyond hydrogen and helium at all don't you?
My point was that all these guys DO factor into the price of creating a product, and they usually aren't paid attention to. That "fixed supply" can vaary wildly depending on the costs of marketing, further research to keep the industry alive (one reason pills cost so much- because the reasearch to develop them was so costly, and the research to keep developing them is also costly.)
Heh, well thanks to rampant stupidity, and a "let's not confuse the children" ethos, the fact that miniscule Pluto is considered a planet means we might as well count lots of chunks of rock in our solar system as "planets."
No one is limiting your use. They're simply asking that you pay for it. The whole problem with a flat rate is that it ends up being calculated by the average amount of bandwidth use. And as you must understand- supplying bandwidth costs money. But therefore, people who use that bandwidth only minimally are essentialy subsidizing users who use lots more bandwidth- it isn't an issue of hoarding, but rather one of different people needing different things. If I only want to use a tiny amount of bandwidth to check my email twice everyday, I should be able to pay a much smaller price than someone who wants to leave napster on 24/7. And this is a good thing! Because it means that people with very little money will still be able to afford SOME access, rather than a monthly bill to high for them to pay. Plus, it means that high load users can, if they want, buy more.
What shouldn't be charged for on the net is distance. That concept is obsolete even for the phone companies (it's just that they are required by law (and telecom law is the most byzantine and insane of all industry regulations) to charge you for distance, even if you travel entirely in, say BEll Atlantic's network). One thing that COULD happen, however, is metered charges depending on volume of traffic over a certain line. So looking at a site in Japan might cost more not because it's far away (meaningless) but because at the hour you used it, tons of other people were jockying for that same amount of bandwidth to Japan.
The REAL importance of market metering, however, is that it allocates resources properly. Instead of everyone trying to slashdot a site all at once, and no one getting anything worthwhile, when the bandwidth to that site is metered, people as a group will spread out their use to avoid extra charges for trying to access already crowded pipes. This efficiency not only helps allocate resources better, but is better overall for the net, bringing down the aboslute cost of bandwidth as well.
Technically, capitalism should, in the long run, drive the cost down to roughly the cost of "that something." Only when you have a monopoly situaiton, like rights to a recording artist's work, do we generally see prices much above the cost of production. What most people fail to realize is that the cost of production for "something" ISN'T just the worth of the materials used and the machine and people that put them together. It now also involves cost of advertising, marketing, research to design new iterations of the product, etc. All these things cost money and manpower to, and drive up the "real" cost of "something."
No no- you missed the WHOLE point of my comment! My point was that even if we DO totaly destroy the earth and make it unlivable by normal means, why should we move to other planets? I mean, they'd be just as inhospitable as the earth, and to live there, we'd still have to live in artificial habitats. Why can't we just stay on the earth and build these same habitats?
Yeah, didn't that seem odd to anyone else? I mean, space is not exactly a habitable place. We don't know of any planets capable of supporting life the way Earth does as is. So, if we're going to have to create artificial environments to survive, why can't we just stay on Earth and do that here? It's a lot cheaper...
x86 is the standard? For what? Mom and Pop Desktops? You should know that that's just not the only market out there. Even more importantly, at some point, if Intel/AMD type chips are going to evolve, they are going to have to move beyond x86. It's not a brilliant architecture by any means, and fixing all its problems is going to break your "standard." Why can't Apple compete with that? They're doing pretty darn well for what they face: a massive network externality.
I love you idiots who come here to mouth off from their high horse, proving to everyone that they've utterly failed to read the article they are criticizing- missing the quite obvious fact that "the writer of this article" is being more funny than serious. Dumbass. It's OMM, not some pompous DailyRadar.
This is potentially incorrect, depending on WHICH Mill we're talking about. The younger one very much DID believe in natural rights- in fact he really founded the modern version of that school of thought.
Kant did to, in a different sense- it's quibbling over opinion and slander to write him off as a mystic.
You are forgetting that by copying music and distributing it is breaking your agreement with the Cd vendor.
Take the DNA cloning example. Let's say you go willingly into the machine, but you do so under the agreement that they'll only take certain chromosomes. And THEN they take samples of all of your chromosomes. Is that really any different than forcing you into the machine in the first place? They got you in their under false pretenses.
THAT's a better analougy.
Geez- even the real Napster zealots dont trot out this old argument. It isn't fair use to pass around music on a mass distribution system. IT's fair use to make copies FOR YOURSELF on different media.
You can't have rights over property you don't own!
So why do you hate the record companies? You buy cds at small independent stores. The music you like obviously still gets made. What have the record companies done to you exactly? Created an "environment"? Whatever. They promote their stars to make millions. But you can choose to spend you money on smaller artists instead. Where
's the problem? Where's the conspiracy?
You're confusing the issue somewhat here. What the government grants is a right saying who the owner is. But that's not in dispute when you make an mp3 and trade it. You both know that the owner is Geffen/Metalica or whatever- what you are doing is breaking the terms of the purchase liscence you agreed to.
The RIAA is doing lots wrong. Going after Napster- a distribution means, not the criminals. Attacking mp3s instead of specific acts. Not allowing that some people CAN decide to "free information"- release music for free.
But that still doesn't justify breaking the terms one agrees to.
Now people who JUST trade existing mp3s and aren't involved in making them- those people could only be copyright laws, and things are much hazier- but these are different questions.
It's essentially theft of money they would have otherwise made. You stole the right they had reserved when they agreed to release and sell their stuff. You stole. It's theft. Night night.
Really? I see, so God's on your side. That must make ethical decisions so much easier on you.
I think God directs people to download MP3s, as they are clearly doing, and I think that's wrong. I'm not afraid to call out God if I think he's directing people to do somehthing unethical- are you?
This is exactly what most people are missing. You don't JUST buy a Cd and own it completely. You by the Cd under certain specific terms. One of those happens to be that you can't copy the cd for distribution to others.
In a sense, what you bought was certain property rights over the Cd- but NOT ALL OF THEM. If you want, you CAN buy all the property rights to the Cd, including the all important right to copy and distribute it. It's easy. Just go to Geffen or whatever and offer them the million dollars they consider that extra right to be worth. The Cd costs 15.99 BECAUSE they AREN'T selling you that right- if they were it would cost much much more.
Now, one can argue that that term is uneforceable. That may be true and valid.
But by distributing the music you are at the very least violating your agreement, breaking, in essence your word. I understand how easy it is to get music and how efficient, and all that. But how can people here run around claiming it's RIGHT?
Sure they can- you're missing the entire point with music.
First: How exactly could someone be "misusing" a resource like music. They make it or they don't. But it's mere existence isn't a _negative externality! Which is what you're claiming in saying that people have a right to object to it.
Second: The point is that the costs go into making that product- and the people who make them expect returns on both the actual costs, and the huge financial risks they took (plenty of drug companies fail to turn profits ever, and crash). South Africa is welcome to develop their own AIDS drugs without violating patent laws in the least. This is a life or death issue, so it's a much harder call.
But who exactly is dying for lack of Britney Spears mp3s?
And "music" isn't anything specific that the copyright restricts. Anyone can make and even sell their own music. The music industry doesn't preclude others from making their own music, which is what your sloppy analougy claims it would.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't asteroids have to be some species of rock? These sound like glorified gas clouds.
What certainty is there that these planets even Have ammonia or methane? If they just collalesced from could of hydrogen, and there's been no nuclear burning, then carbon and oxygen can't even exists, much less more complex molecules like ammonia and methane.
To boost your point, one thing people commonly don't realize is that ANY concept of life, no matter how different from life on Earth, would require complex, yet stable patterns. But this sort of thing requires materials- namely- complex molecules. Even if these planetoids WERE violent and random, nothing would happen, because they probably don't have anything more complex than hydrogen, and maybe helium. Without nuclear fusion (which is exactly what these things lack) those molecules can't really do anything other than bump into each other. Life on earth is possible mainly because we have atoms like carbon, oxyegen, and nitrogen, which allow all sort of complex configurations, ranging from simple protiens to DNA. But unless these balls are castoffs from a supernova, it's doubtful that they'd have many, if any, of these heavier atoms. So even if conditions WEREN'T terrible for life as WE know it- they're still terrible for ANY life.
math isn't a "thing" that can be wrong. It's a representation of abstract concepts like number, and while these founding assumptions can be wrong, math itself is internally consistent and correct just as an abstract systm on its own. We can put digits in the wrong place, but we can't be "wrong" about the existence of digits. There is no such real thing as a digit. It's a concept we created, and defined it's parameters ourselves. It could indeed turn out that our math is a poor way to DESCRIBE what goes on in the universe, but's an entirely different problem.
If these extra solar planets were really never born from a star, and are just collected clouds, then they might have another difference from Jupiter: no heavy elements. Instead of Jupiter's mix (though it still is mostly hydrogen right) wouldn't these "planets" basically just be big balls of hydrogren period? I mean, you need star fusion to create anything beyond hydrogen and helium at all don't you?
You are right, so am i, and the guy above you and below me is wrong.
My point was that all these guys DO factor into the price of creating a product, and they usually aren't paid attention to. That "fixed supply" can vaary wildly depending on the costs of marketing, further research to keep the industry alive (one reason pills cost so much- because the reasearch to develop them was so costly, and the research to keep developing them is also costly.)
Heh, well thanks to rampant stupidity, and a "let's not confuse the children" ethos, the fact that miniscule Pluto is considered a planet means we might as well count lots of chunks of rock in our solar system as "planets."
No one is limiting your use. They're simply asking that you pay for it. The whole problem with a flat rate is that it ends up being calculated by the average amount of bandwidth use. And as you must understand- supplying bandwidth costs money. But therefore, people who use that bandwidth only minimally are essentialy subsidizing users who use lots more bandwidth- it isn't an issue of hoarding, but rather one of different people needing different things. If I only want to use a tiny amount of bandwidth to check my email twice everyday, I should be able to pay a much smaller price than someone who wants to leave napster on 24/7. And this is a good thing! Because it means that people with very little money will still be able to afford SOME access, rather than a monthly bill to high for them to pay. Plus, it means that high load users can, if they want, buy more. What shouldn't be charged for on the net is distance. That concept is obsolete even for the phone companies (it's just that they are required by law (and telecom law is the most byzantine and insane of all industry regulations) to charge you for distance, even if you travel entirely in, say BEll Atlantic's network). One thing that COULD happen, however, is metered charges depending on volume of traffic over a certain line. So looking at a site in Japan might cost more not because it's far away (meaningless) but because at the hour you used it, tons of other people were jockying for that same amount of bandwidth to Japan. The REAL importance of market metering, however, is that it allocates resources properly. Instead of everyone trying to slashdot a site all at once, and no one getting anything worthwhile, when the bandwidth to that site is metered, people as a group will spread out their use to avoid extra charges for trying to access already crowded pipes. This efficiency not only helps allocate resources better, but is better overall for the net, bringing down the aboslute cost of bandwidth as well.
Technically, capitalism should, in the long run, drive the cost down to roughly the cost of "that something." Only when you have a monopoly situaiton, like rights to a recording artist's work, do we generally see prices much above the cost of production. What most people fail to realize is that the cost of production for "something" ISN'T just the worth of the materials used and the machine and people that put them together. It now also involves cost of advertising, marketing, research to design new iterations of the product, etc. All these things cost money and manpower to, and drive up the "real" cost of "something."
No no- you missed the WHOLE point of my comment! My point was that even if we DO totaly destroy the earth and make it unlivable by normal means, why should we move to other planets? I mean, they'd be just as inhospitable as the earth, and to live there, we'd still have to live in artificial habitats. Why can't we just stay on the earth and build these same habitats?
Yeah, didn't that seem odd to anyone else? I mean, space is not exactly a habitable place. We don't know of any planets capable of supporting life the way Earth does as is. So, if we're going to have to create artificial environments to survive, why can't we just stay on Earth and do that here? It's a lot cheaper...
x86 is the standard? For what? Mom and Pop Desktops? You should know that that's just not the only market out there. Even more importantly, at some point, if Intel/AMD type chips are going to evolve, they are going to have to move beyond x86. It's not a brilliant architecture by any means, and fixing all its problems is going to break your "standard." Why can't Apple compete with that? They're doing pretty darn well for what they face: a massive network externality.
Charon does so accept cookies, and it does that just fine. Why would you say it doesn't? It doesn't do Java or some of the more complex Javascript.
I don't want to open a can of worms, but GNU stuff is generally bloated and sloppy. Apple is trying to avoid such things.
I love you idiots who come here to mouth off from their high horse, proving to everyone that they've utterly failed to read the article they are criticizing- missing the quite obvious fact that "the writer of this article" is being more funny than serious. Dumbass. It's OMM, not some pompous DailyRadar.
This is potentially incorrect, depending on WHICH Mill we're talking about. The younger one very much DID believe in natural rights- in fact he really founded the modern version of that school of thought. Kant did to, in a different sense- it's quibbling over opinion and slander to write him off as a mystic.
You are forgetting that by copying music and distributing it is breaking your agreement with the Cd vendor. Take the DNA cloning example. Let's say you go willingly into the machine, but you do so under the agreement that they'll only take certain chromosomes. And THEN they take samples of all of your chromosomes. Is that really any different than forcing you into the machine in the first place? They got you in their under false pretenses. THAT's a better analougy.
Geez- even the real Napster zealots dont trot out this old argument. It isn't fair use to pass around music on a mass distribution system. IT's fair use to make copies FOR YOURSELF on different media. You can't have rights over property you don't own!
So why do you hate the record companies? You buy cds at small independent stores. The music you like obviously still gets made. What have the record companies done to you exactly? Created an "environment"? Whatever. They promote their stars to make millions. But you can choose to spend you money on smaller artists instead. Where 's the problem? Where's the conspiracy?
You're confusing the issue somewhat here. What the government grants is a right saying who the owner is. But that's not in dispute when you make an mp3 and trade it. You both know that the owner is Geffen/Metalica or whatever- what you are doing is breaking the terms of the purchase liscence you agreed to. The RIAA is doing lots wrong. Going after Napster- a distribution means, not the criminals. Attacking mp3s instead of specific acts. Not allowing that some people CAN decide to "free information"- release music for free. But that still doesn't justify breaking the terms one agrees to. Now people who JUST trade existing mp3s and aren't involved in making them- those people could only be copyright laws, and things are much hazier- but these are different questions.
It's essentially theft of money they would have otherwise made. You stole the right they had reserved when they agreed to release and sell their stuff. You stole. It's theft. Night night.
Really? I see, so God's on your side. That must make ethical decisions so much easier on you. I think God directs people to download MP3s, as they are clearly doing, and I think that's wrong. I'm not afraid to call out God if I think he's directing people to do somehthing unethical- are you?
This is exactly what most people are missing. You don't JUST buy a Cd and own it completely. You by the Cd under certain specific terms. One of those happens to be that you can't copy the cd for distribution to others. In a sense, what you bought was certain property rights over the Cd- but NOT ALL OF THEM. If you want, you CAN buy all the property rights to the Cd, including the all important right to copy and distribute it. It's easy. Just go to Geffen or whatever and offer them the million dollars they consider that extra right to be worth. The Cd costs 15.99 BECAUSE they AREN'T selling you that right- if they were it would cost much much more. Now, one can argue that that term is uneforceable. That may be true and valid. But by distributing the music you are at the very least violating your agreement, breaking, in essence your word. I understand how easy it is to get music and how efficient, and all that. But how can people here run around claiming it's RIGHT?
Sure they can- you're missing the entire point with music. First: How exactly could someone be "misusing" a resource like music. They make it or they don't. But it's mere existence isn't a _negative externality! Which is what you're claiming in saying that people have a right to object to it. Second: The point is that the costs go into making that product- and the people who make them expect returns on both the actual costs, and the huge financial risks they took (plenty of drug companies fail to turn profits ever, and crash). South Africa is welcome to develop their own AIDS drugs without violating patent laws in the least. This is a life or death issue, so it's a much harder call. But who exactly is dying for lack of Britney Spears mp3s? And "music" isn't anything specific that the copyright restricts. Anyone can make and even sell their own music. The music industry doesn't preclude others from making their own music, which is what your sloppy analougy claims it would.