Or alternatively, make one or two video's, distribute those, and state you'll make more if you get enough pre-orders. You can then even have users vote on which ones they want first.
because you fear your government might mandate a back door in the navigation software?
Yes. And I think the fear is justified.
You should be opposing your totalitarian government, not autonomous cars!
It's a lot easier to oppose a totalitarian government before it becomes a totalitarian government. Hence, why I oppose a requirement to ride in an autonomous car.
That's the same as wanting to ban hammers because they can be used to kill someone. If you fear your government is/will be totalitarian you should be fighting for proper privacy laws, governmental accountability, and a proper electoral system, not for banning hammers.
For reaching those protests, you have your motorcycle:)
But seriously, you oppose autonomous cars because you fear your government might mandate a back door in the navigation software? You should be opposing your totalitarian government, not autonomous cars!
A beta can have different goals than just finding bugs. Or better said, there are different classes of problems and a beta can focus on a certain class of problems.
I think the Starcraft 2 beta focused on multiplayer balance, especially at the higher level. To make sure that equally skilled high-level players playing different races have an equal chance of winning. For that you need reasonably good players playing lots and lots of games. Someone who never played starcraft can't really contribute to that unless he really invest in learning the game first. But that would most likely take longer than the duration of the beta test.
Unfortunately for you, that only goes for the position of the sun at noon.
Above the north tropic, the sun rises and sets to your north in summer and to your south in winter. If you go north far enough, the sun doesn't set at all in summer and reaches its lowest point at midnight, at which time it will be perfectly north of you.
This effect is actually smallest at the equator, where the sunrise and sunset have the least north/south variation over the course of the year.
The winner is the one with the most votes. So if there are three choices, 31% could be a majority and 69% would get *no rep at all*. That's the whole problem, the losers get nothing, nada, zip.
Of course a reworking of the electoral system would also require a rethinking of the presidency. One person should never have that much power. That's the whole point. The power a party has should be proportional to the number of votes that party got. You shouldn't be voting for a president, you should be voting for a party.
After an election you would need a coalition with a majority to rule, so you always need at least a combined 51% to rule the country, not 1% and the remaining 49% is not totally powerless, as it is very unlikely that the ruling parties agree on everything. That's the whole point of not having a "winner takes all" system.
100 parties are very unlikely, as parties that are closely related would quickly merge to become bigger and thus have more power.
By the way, doesn't the president already need congressional permission to start a war?
Most medical drugs and treatments don't work 100% of the time. That does not mean they don't work. And they are not the same as "no treatment".
Similarly placebos don't work 100% of the time. That does not mean they don't work. And they are not the same as "no treatment".
No, placebo's NEVER work, that's the definition of a placebo. The reason the placebo seems to work is because of the psychological effect of "being treated". The placebo effect is not caused by the placebo itself!
> If the drugs aren't doing better than placebo's, they are placebo's!
Not necessarily. In theory you could have a treatment/drug that works in say 20% of the cases, worse than placebo, but it still works about the same even if you tell the patient it's a sham treatment, or the patient is unaware/unconscious when you apply the treatment/drug.
Again, no. If a drug works in 20% of the cases, it would show a 20% increase over the placebo effect.
Lets look at the statistics for a drug that works in 20% of the cases, with a group of test subjects that has a placebo effect in 30% of the cases: In the control group 30% of the patients would feel better because of the feeling of being treated (which is the placebo effect). In the test group, the same 30% of the patients would experience the placebo effect. Of this 30%, 20% would additionally have a real effect, but it might be impossible to differentiate. Of the 70% not experiencing placebo effect 20% would have a real effect, leading to a total of 44% feeling an effect.
To sum it up:
Control group: 30% placebo effect 70% no effect
Test group: 24% pure placebo effect 6% combined placebo/drug effect 14% pure drug effect 56% no effect
If a drug does not show an effect above the placebo effect, it is a placebo.
So a single party could in theory get 49% of the votes but not get a single member in congress... That's not what I call democratic, that's what I call ridiculous... Maybe we should invade the USA to bring you poor people democracy:)
I'd say you need proper proportional representation so that party C gets the influence they are entitled to. That would lead to coalition governments where small parties actually can get their points on the agenda.
How many votes can you get in the USA without getting any representation?
I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.
Neatly sidetracked but you didn't answer the question so I know the answer you'd give - yes, you'd be offended just like I or anyone else would, that might make you angry and you might then lash out.
You're still not getting it. He's saying that 1. there's a difference between someone trying to offend you and you feeling offended. 2. there's a difference between taking offence and becoming angry 3. there's an ever bigger difference between becoming angry and acting violently.
But apparently you really can't perceive those differences...:)
And there's nothing that you can yell at me in the street that would make me feel offended. Only a person I respect can do that, and respect is something that first has to be earned. I would just think you an idiot.
And in that same vein, if the only reason you are behaving morally correct is because you are scared of the invisible sky fairy, then you are not a good person at all.
The good persons are those that behave morally without believing in the invisible punisher.
Last time I checked Firefox ran on MS Windows, Linux, Mac... So apparently there already are platform dependent code paths to get the UI on the screen in the first place, and to get keyboard and mouse input. I don't see why that could not be extended to also include video rendering.
Any programmer who can't easily cope with any indention between 1 and 8, in other words whatever the the project coding standard is, is not competent.
Yes, and someone who can't speak normally is stupid... Sorry dude, but with that once sentence you just proven yourself to be very short-sighted and lost all your credibility.
What you and parent want is elastic tabstops. That solves the problem of people that don't understand that tabs are for indentation and spaces for alignment. See http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/
People are different and different people need different tab sizes to make the code optimally readable for them.
Also, I've never had to search for a tab character, why are you searching for whitespace?
If math or if constructs are so complex they become unreadable, they probably should be split up in multiple statements. That's much better for understanding what happens that trying to mess with the layout of that single statement.
Soldering on leads won't help. The service equipment would not have "the" key as there is no "the" key. Every car has it's own key and the service equipment downloads said key when needed.
puntive contract term: a line in a contract that states that if dealer does X, puntive measure Y ensues. Such a term is not needed in the contract. The evil company can always terminate the contract, even without such a line. You can have "puntive measures" without "puntive contract terms".
Nope, it's not two clicks, it's 1 key-combo. Because there are so little windows per desktop, you generally only need to switch to the right desktop (with 1 key-combo) and you're done. You really should try it. You basically achieve exactly the effect you want by putting your apps in fixed desktops. And you don't even need to remember any most-recent order, or spend time putting your apps in a specific order, you just start your apps on the same desktop, or you drag&drop 'em there.
You should start using virtual desktops, they exist just to solve that exact problem. Give every desktop a "task" and always put programs belonging to that task on that desktop. If a desktop ever contains more than 5 windows for a longer period of time, subdivide the task for that desktop. After a while you'll be automatically switching to the correct desktop whenever you need to do something, even if you just started your machine and all desktops are empty. You'll never be searching for a window ever again.
Sure they could be, it just depends on what population you take that average of! I'm sure that in the group of "woman and blind people" all woman that are not blind are far above average drivers:)
I don't think cams are a real problem. You can't use cam feeds as source to show in a cinema.
Even books don't really need copyright. Physical books have a huge first-mover advantage as making a large-scale copy of a book is not something you can quickly do. Even something simple as stating "buying this version supports the author" will swing most people to buy the "official" version, and there already are laws against false advertisement and lying, so copycats can't say the same. The official 9-11 report did not have any copyright on it, yet a big publisher singed a deal to be able to be the first one to publish it in print.
Photographers also hardly have a problem. Most photographers get paid for an assignment. News papers can't get any headlines with a photo copied from yesterdays edition of the competition, so they will still pay photographers to get the original at day 1.
I don't know of any real problems caused by the removal of copyright, and you don't need any additional laws.
So some theatres will have to do something about their security. I don't see that as a problem...
If the theatre has no knowledge of the copy, the copy was not made by their personnel, meaning they had a brake in, and the person running the projector didn't properly check the equipment for tampering.
Smaller theatres probably have much less personnel, making it much easier to find the culprit. $1.50 theatres run older movies, thus damages will be accordingly less.
Besides, any theatre running a non-official copy will have problems, because no studio will supply them with official ones any more. They will also be under investigation because they obviously have connections to the criminals that broke into the theatre that had their tapes copied.
There are plenty of ways things can be solved in absence of copyright.
What part of "breach of contract" are you missing? I don't know US law, but in most countries that is plenty of reason. If the theatre allowed someone to copy the tape, the theatre is responsible and will have to pay for the resulting damage. That's a very clear-cut case. Is USA law so broken that that is not sufficient protection?
Slashdot Mirror
Or alternatively, make one or two video's, distribute those, and state you'll make more if you get enough pre-orders. You can then even have users vote on which ones they want first.
because you fear your government might mandate a back door in the navigation software?
Yes. And I think the fear is justified.
You should be opposing your totalitarian government, not autonomous cars!
It's a lot easier to oppose a totalitarian government before it becomes a totalitarian government. Hence, why I oppose a requirement to ride in an autonomous car.
That's the same as wanting to ban hammers because they can be used to kill someone. If you fear your government is/will be totalitarian you should be fighting for proper privacy laws, governmental accountability, and a proper electoral system, not for banning hammers.
For reaching those protests, you have your motorcycle :)
But seriously, you oppose autonomous cars because you fear your government might mandate a back door in the navigation software? You should be opposing your totalitarian government, not autonomous cars!
Exactly. People who stick to spaces for indentation don't realise that there is a difference between indentation and alignment.
But elastic tab stops are still the best: http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/
A beta can have different goals than just finding bugs. Or better said, there are different classes of problems and a beta can focus on a certain class of problems.
I think the Starcraft 2 beta focused on multiplayer balance, especially at the higher level. To make sure that equally skilled high-level players playing different races have an equal chance of winning. For that you need reasonably good players playing lots and lots of games. Someone who never played starcraft can't really contribute to that unless he really invest in learning the game first. But that would most likely take longer than the duration of the beta test.
Indeed, but more for some of the readers here than for the writer.
Unfortunately for you, that only goes for the position of the sun at noon.
Above the north tropic, the sun rises and sets to your north in summer and to your south in winter.
If you go north far enough, the sun doesn't set at all in summer and reaches its lowest point at midnight, at which time it will be perfectly north of you.
This effect is actually smallest at the equator, where the sunrise and sunset have the least north/south variation over the course of the year.
No, something so trivial is (or should be) unpatentable.
One might expect someone to have tried to patent it already, but that's something different.
The winner is the one with the most votes. So if there are three choices, 31% could be a majority and 69% would get *no rep at all*. That's the whole problem, the losers get nothing, nada, zip.
Of course a reworking of the electoral system would also require a rethinking of the presidency. One person should never have that much power. That's the whole point. The power a party has should be proportional to the number of votes that party got. You shouldn't be voting for a president, you should be voting for a party.
After an election you would need a coalition with a majority to rule, so you always need at least a combined 51% to rule the country, not 1% and the remaining 49% is not totally powerless, as it is very unlikely that the ruling parties agree on everything. That's the whole point of not having a "winner takes all" system.
100 parties are very unlikely, as parties that are closely related would quickly merge to become bigger and thus have more power.
By the way, doesn't the president already need congressional permission to start a war?
No. You really don't get it.
Most medical drugs and treatments don't work 100% of the time. That does not mean they don't work. And they are not the same as "no treatment".
Similarly placebos don't work 100% of the time. That does not mean they don't work. And they are not the same as "no treatment".
No, placebo's NEVER work, that's the definition of a placebo. The reason the placebo seems to work is because of the psychological effect of "being treated". The placebo effect is not caused by the placebo itself!
> If the drugs aren't doing better than placebo's, they are placebo's!
Not necessarily. In theory you could have a treatment/drug that works in say 20% of the cases, worse than placebo, but it still works about the same even if you tell the patient it's a sham treatment, or the patient is unaware/unconscious when you apply the treatment/drug.
Again, no. If a drug works in 20% of the cases, it would show a 20% increase over the placebo effect.
Lets look at the statistics for a drug that works in 20% of the cases, with a group of test subjects that has a placebo effect in 30% of the cases:
In the control group 30% of the patients would feel better because of the feeling of being treated (which is the placebo effect). In the test group, the same 30% of the patients would experience the placebo effect. Of this 30%, 20% would additionally have a real effect, but it might be impossible to differentiate.
Of the 70% not experiencing placebo effect 20% would have a real effect, leading to a total of 44% feeling an effect.
To sum it up:
Control group:
30% placebo effect
70% no effect
Test group:
24% pure placebo effect
6% combined placebo/drug effect
14% pure drug effect
56% no effect
If a drug does not show an effect above the placebo effect, it is a placebo.
Doesn't that mean it's even worse? If the winner only needs 31%, that means 69% of the voters goes without representation!
Or am I missing something, like districts with more than one representative that can go to different parties?
So a single party could in theory get 49% of the votes but not get a single member in congress... :)
That's not what I call democratic, that's what I call ridiculous... Maybe we should invade the USA to bring you poor people democracy
I'd say you need proper proportional representation so that party C gets the influence they are entitled to. That would lead to coalition governments where small parties actually can get their points on the agenda.
How many votes can you get in the USA without getting any representation?
I'm allowed to take as much offense as I please. I am not, however, allowed to behead him (or do any harm to him/her) for doing so.
Neatly sidetracked but you didn't answer the question so I know the answer you'd give - yes, you'd be offended just like I or anyone else would, that might make you angry and you might then lash out.
You're still not getting it. He's saying that
1. there's a difference between someone trying to offend you and you feeling offended.
2. there's a difference between taking offence and becoming angry
3. there's an ever bigger difference between becoming angry and acting violently.
But apparently you really can't perceive those differences... :)
And there's nothing that you can yell at me in the street that would make me feel offended. Only a person I respect can do that, and respect is something that first has to be earned. I would just think you an idiot.
And in that same vein, if the only reason you are behaving morally correct is because you are scared of the invisible sky fairy, then you are not a good person at all.
The good persons are those that behave morally without believing in the invisible punisher.
Last time I checked Firefox ran on MS Windows, Linux, Mac... So apparently there already are platform dependent code paths to get the UI on the screen in the first place, and to get keyboard and mouse input. I don't see why that could not be extended to also include video rendering.
Any programmer who can't easily cope with any indention between 1 and 8, in other words whatever the the project coding standard is, is not competent.
Yes, and someone who can't speak normally is stupid...
Sorry dude, but with that once sentence you just proven yourself to be very short-sighted and lost all your credibility.
What you and parent want is elastic tabstops. That solves the problem of people that don't understand that tabs are for indentation and spaces for alignment. See http://nickgravgaard.com/elastictabstops/
People are different and different people need different tab sizes to make the code optimally readable for them.
Also, I've never had to search for a tab character, why are you searching for whitespace?
If math or if constructs are so complex they become unreadable, they probably should be split up in multiple statements. That's much better for understanding what happens that trying to mess with the layout of that single statement.
Soldering on leads won't help. The service equipment would not have "the" key as there is no "the" key. Every car has it's own key and the service equipment downloads said key when needed.
puntive contract term: a line in a contract that states that if dealer does X, puntive measure Y ensues.
Such a term is not needed in the contract. The evil company can always terminate the contract, even without such a line. You can have "puntive measures" without "puntive contract terms".
Nope, it's not two clicks, it's 1 key-combo. Because there are so little windows per desktop, you generally only need to switch to the right desktop (with 1 key-combo) and you're done. You really should try it. You basically achieve exactly the effect you want by putting your apps in fixed desktops. And you don't even need to remember any most-recent order, or spend time putting your apps in a specific order, you just start your apps on the same desktop, or you drag&drop 'em there.
You should start using virtual desktops, they exist just to solve that exact problem. Give every desktop a "task" and always put programs belonging to that task on that desktop. If a desktop ever contains more than 5 windows for a longer period of time, subdivide the task for that desktop.
After a while you'll be automatically switching to the correct desktop whenever you need to do something, even if you just started your machine and all desktops are empty. You'll never be searching for a window ever again.
Sure they could be, it just depends on what population you take that average of! I'm sure that in the group of "woman and blind people" all woman that are not blind are far above average drivers :)
I don't think cams are a real problem. You can't use cam feeds as source to show in a cinema.
Even books don't really need copyright. Physical books have a huge first-mover advantage as making a large-scale copy of a book is not something you can quickly do. Even something simple as stating "buying this version supports the author" will swing most people to buy the "official" version, and there already are laws against false advertisement and lying, so copycats can't say the same. The official 9-11 report did not have any copyright on it, yet a big publisher singed a deal to be able to be the first one to publish it in print.
Photographers also hardly have a problem. Most photographers get paid for an assignment. News papers can't get any headlines with a photo copied from yesterdays edition of the competition, so they will still pay photographers to get the original at day 1.
I don't know of any real problems caused by the removal of copyright, and you don't need any additional laws.
So some theatres will have to do something about their security. I don't see that as a problem...
If the theatre has no knowledge of the copy, the copy was not made by their personnel, meaning they had a brake in, and the person running the projector didn't properly check the equipment for tampering.
Smaller theatres probably have much less personnel, making it much easier to find the culprit. $1.50 theatres run older movies, thus damages will be accordingly less.
Besides, any theatre running a non-official copy will have problems, because no studio will supply them with official ones any more. They will also be under investigation because they obviously have connections to the criminals that broke into the theatre that had their tapes copied.
There are plenty of ways things can be solved in absence of copyright.
What part of "breach of contract" are you missing?
I don't know US law, but in most countries that is plenty of reason. If the theatre allowed someone to copy the tape, the theatre is responsible and will have to pay for the resulting damage.
That's a very clear-cut case. Is USA law so broken that that is not sufficient protection?