Even individuals are subject to a rule like this, in amassing retirement accounts. When you reach age 70, you have to observe a stipulated payout, which is taxed as ordinary income.
Your Xerox printer would create really nice pictures of Mohammed sucking donkey dick, which you could then distribute at as many European welfare offices as you can manage. Adding the caption PRINTED BY XEROX would be helpful.
You're not looking at this in the right way. It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.
Xerox is ripping us off not by region encoding its products, but by using federal power to criminalize whatever consumer forms of post-purchase hacking of its product that consumer may find advantageous.
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will mistrust science. It means that scientists need to stop trusting journals that promise illusory prestige in exchange for being overpriced.
"I used to be all for this type of research. Then my wife and I had a child a few months ago and my feelings towards what is acceptable to toy with changed"
Yes, so long as we have laws around homicide we need a legal definition of when life begins. But since we use brain death as the secular standard for the end of life, why don't we draw the line on abortion as the start of brain activity? The same criterion would apply to use of fetal tissue and to experiments like this one.
Even if carbon warming turns out to be totally exaggerated, it would be a damning indictment of the politics around it, not the science. Real scientists maintain skepticism as a default mode.
A pro-science position on climate change would be wanting to have science settle the question with as little interference from politics as possible, while at the same time accepting the engineering consequences, whatever they might be, of science's final verdict on the issue.
As it is, climatology is on the way to becoming as taboo a subject as human genetics: whichever way the science falls, sensitive little toes are going to get crushed and we can't have that.
Why do we allow AC posting at all? Our screen names offer all the anonymity we need, with the important property that all comments made by one person remain associated with that person's history. To get rid of trolls for good, eliminate all AC posting, including that by registered users.
The only kind of troll this would not eliminate would be the "Viewpoint differs strongly from mine" definition of troll.
This is why the first place you want to drive the whole idea of open source, low cost medical devices is in developing-world markets where there is a desperate need. Volume manufacturing can be done in countries which are higher up on the development chain, enough to have decent manufacturing facilities.
The only way the US or European "markets" will accept something like this is if it becomes an unstoppable fait accompli in the rest of the world.
"This is Europe, not the USA. They're likely to get pretty light sentences at most if not just probation and a fine."
Let's try applying logic to this question. If the European sentence for mass murder is assumed as being one breivik, a unit of punishment equal to 21 Earth years, then Adolf Hitler would have gotten a full life sentence of Br 4.0, and the Popcorn Time boys would get about a microbreivik suspended.
But this is law, not logic. The MPAA/RIAA occupies the same place in European jurisprudence that the Holy Inquisition did around 1500, and can probably exact similar punishments.
There have been several recent threads on this subject, and what has emerged is that there is no reason why Elsevier couldn't be replaced by a series of cheap websites for research areas. On each, researches post papers and there's a wiki for peer commentary. If you want to get fancy, there might be a public commentary forum.
There's nothing innately expensive about the publishing process. Peers review for free because they publish too, and you will one day return the favor. There's nothing about copy editing and formatting that can't be done cheap by a template based site maintenance app like RapidWeaver.
So why does Elsevier and its $19,000 a journal subscription monopoly persist? Because it's always been done that way, apparently, and because you can't expect today's universities to be innovative in exploring new ideas, or anything like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Even individuals are subject to a rule like this, in amassing retirement accounts. When you reach age 70, you have to observe a stipulated payout, which is taxed as ordinary income.
" Believe it or not some people are not 100% selfish."
Just watch. Eventually they will run out of other people's money.
Your Xerox printer would create really nice pictures of Mohammed sucking donkey dick, which you could then distribute at as many European welfare offices as you can manage. Adding the caption PRINTED BY XEROX would be helpful.
"Actually, I think it should be unlawful"
You're not looking at this in the right way. It should be lawful to encrypt cartridges as a way of making more money, and it should be equally lawful for a customer to decrypt them as a way of saving money. THAT is how real capitalism would work.
Xerox is ripping us off not by region encoding its products, but by using federal power to criminalize whatever consumer forms of post-purchase hacking of its product that consumer may find advantageous.
On when Google will suddenly back out of this language project - or both of them, as the case may be - and just go with Swift?
"Publishers, get your act together!"
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will mistrust science. It means that scientists need to stop trusting journals that promise illusory prestige in exchange for being overpriced.
"Yea, but with the falcon you have to launch two of them to get one to the space station... (Grin)."
Thereby still saving money with the Falcon.
Competition makes everything better.
"At least they have a brain. Democrats are safe from brain-eating zombies."
But only if the food they eat is labeled for any ingredient or process they might be irrationally scared of.
"I used to be all for this type of research. Then my wife and I had a child a few months ago and my feelings towards what is acceptable to toy with changed"
Yes, so long as we have laws around homicide we need a legal definition of when life begins. But since we use brain death as the secular standard for the end of life, why don't we draw the line on abortion as the start of brain activity? The same criterion would apply to use of fetal tissue and to experiments like this one.
Even if carbon warming turns out to be totally exaggerated, it would be a damning indictment of the politics around it, not the science. Real scientists maintain skepticism as a default mode.
A pro-science position on climate change would be wanting to have science settle the question with as little interference from politics as possible, while at the same time accepting the engineering consequences, whatever they might be, of science's final verdict on the issue.
As it is, climatology is on the way to becoming as taboo a subject as human genetics: whichever way the science falls, sensitive little toes are going to get crushed and we can't have that.
Why do we allow AC posting at all? Our screen names offer all the anonymity we need, with the important property that all comments made by one person remain associated with that person's history. To get rid of trolls for good, eliminate all AC posting, including that by registered users.
The only kind of troll this would not eliminate would be the "Viewpoint differs strongly from mine" definition of troll.
This is why the first place you want to drive the whole idea of open source, low cost medical devices is in developing-world markets where there is a desperate need. Volume manufacturing can be done in countries which are higher up on the development chain, enough to have decent manufacturing facilities.
The only way the US or European "markets" will accept something like this is if it becomes an unstoppable fait accompli in the rest of the world.
"The biggest limitation to flight time on multirotors right now is the battery."
I thought it was buckshot from rednecks.
Meanwhile, your people would get this new battery design banned because some of the ingredients in it have long names.
Are we going to support the Party That Used To Believe in Open Markets or the Party That Used To Build Stuff?
Although you can boot Windows on a Mac, you don't have to do that. Windows, including Win 10, can be run safely in a Parallels or VMWare sandbox.
"This is Europe, not the USA. They're likely to get pretty light sentences at most if not just probation and a fine."
Let's try applying logic to this question. If the European sentence for mass murder is assumed as being one breivik, a unit of punishment equal to 21 Earth years, then Adolf Hitler would have gotten a full life sentence of Br 4.0, and the Popcorn Time boys would get about a microbreivik suspended.
But this is law, not logic. The MPAA/RIAA occupies the same place in European jurisprudence that the Holy Inquisition did around 1500, and can probably exact similar punishments.
Now try to get your medallion cabs to pick up in a part of town where all the drunks are.
Apparently three people floating in a hot tub intuit that you could be guilty of 'precrime' and you're on the list.
There have been several recent threads on this subject, and what has emerged is that there is no reason why Elsevier couldn't be replaced by a series of cheap websites for research areas. On each, researches post papers and there's a wiki for peer commentary. If you want to get fancy, there might be a public commentary forum.
There's nothing innately expensive about the publishing process. Peers review for free because they publish too, and you will one day return the favor. There's nothing about copy editing and formatting that can't be done cheap by a template based site maintenance app like RapidWeaver.
So why does Elsevier and its $19,000 a journal subscription monopoly persist? Because it's always been done that way, apparently, and because you can't expect today's universities to be innovative in exploring new ideas, or anything like that.
"Our Soylent is free range, wild-caught vegans! No GMOs!
" Dinosaurs are still with us today. Why, I have several outside right now eating sunflower seeds from the feeder."
That is why the rest of us don't live in Australia.
Almost identical to my own reading list, as it happens, except that mine was back in the days of print.
München is planning exactly this, a citywide network of elevated cycle freeways:
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/m...