The rocket was already going (for other reasons), so the trip was already paid for. Doing a special beyond-orbital shot just to send someone's ashes out there would be... well, it would equal the cost of building and launching an entire larger-than-usual rocket.
A person's cremains weigh only a few pounds, a typical satellite anywhere from half a ton upwards. Why would the rocket have to be 'larger than usual'? (Assuming there is such a thing as 'usual', which there really isn't - [commercial] rockets come in a large variety of sizes.)
First of all, that was a pretty sophisticated morality tale for a cartoon show.
Sophisticated? You _must_ be kidding, that's about as sophisticated as a Smokey the Bear commercial. It's cheap featherweight crap.
I don't think that kind of writing shows up any more on non-cable TV channels (for cartoons, anyway).
In other words, you are as little familiar with cartoons and culture of the current era as you are with the cartoons and culture preceeding and concurrent with the original Transformers series. Simplified morality plays have been a staple of childrens television programming practically since the medium was invented. (And culturally it goes back much further than that - Grimm's Fairy Tales is nothing but a collection of such tales.)
And the fact that I still remember that episode after all these years can only mean that it was a well-written story. The only stories people tend to remember are the really good ones or the hilariously bad ones.
No. The fact that you remember it only proves that... you remember it. Nothing more, nothing less.
On the other hand, this is a Michael Bay film. I heard he got his start as a director of music videos, so that might serve him well in a film like this. The problem is he goes for big explosions and fancy camera shots over good storytelling.
Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.
Silly Secret Service, don't you know suicide bombers are for kids? When they realize they can't do it remotely, someone will "martyr" themselves to get the job done. That's the insidiousness of Islamic fascists.
Certainly the Secret Service knows this - this is why they are doing it. They have almost zero chance of detecting a remotely detonated explosive - while they have a much larger chance (but not a certainty) of catching a martyr.
That said, doing something is better than doing nothing. A lot of the complaints here seem to be along the lines of "why lock my car door when someone can steal my stereo by breaking the window anyway?" It just means you'll be limiting your opponents to only very serious players instead of wannabes.
And actually - that's a Good Thing, as it narrows the potential field of opponents significantly. Any security professional, if asked, would choose "decreasing the bad guys chances some small amount" instantly over "leave the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition". They know damm well they can't stop everyone, everywhere - but that they can stop most of them most places, and make life more difficult for the rest.
Trigger the bomb to explode not on the *presence* of a jamming signal, but on the *weakening of the running average* of the signal strength (i.e., when the chopper is moving away from you).
Which means the Black Hats now can't simply attach a bomb to a cellphone. Instead they have to perform a substantial hardware and software hack - and not only hope it works when used in the field, but hope their algorithm is clever enough to analyze the signal detonate the bomb when the President is near it - rather than already well past. Their job has now become significantly more difficult - their friction (to use the technical term) has gone up. Increasing the friction is a Good Thing.
Side comment: I love the typical Slashdot arrogance here, the automagic assumption that random amateurs somehow know more than the professionals.
I'm not flag-waving here or anything, but the UK's law is fortunately a lot more biased towards the applicant when it comes to discrimination.
Um... So what? Discrimination isn't the issue here. You're totally coming out of left field.
There are legal exceptions to this, but they are quite specific and usually down to health & safety or security, or sometimes public reputation in certain high-level positions. In truth, the practices become more discriminatory the higher-up you go, where laws seem to be more flexible (the very epitome of "privilege"), but for 99% of the population there is no way such "checking" as fingerprinting, financial records, blood samples or anything else would ever be used, nor even contemplated, in case somebody decided to question the practices in court.
Yes, because you'd always leave your fingerprints on the handle to the abovementioned backdoor.
No, because if they can conclusively trace the backdoor (using normal investigative procedures) to "Susan Smith" - fingerprints can prove it's the same "Susan Smith" who worked at the business.
Both 'real' jobs that I've had (ie, since college) have required fingerprinting. (One for a secret security clearance, the other to work at NASA on sensitive-but-unclassified projects). I have no fear because I am an ethical individual and my prints will never cross their paths again.
Indeed. My prints are permanently on file with the Feds because I held a 'burn-your-brain-after-reading-this' acess (clearance to the uneducated) when I was in the Navy - and I have no fear of that file because, as you say, my prints will never cross their desk again.
He also seemed to be asking the difference between a web site and a message board. That might be a little nuanced even for the computer-using non-expert.
Heck - that's more than a little nuanced for the tech crowd as well.
But it does bring up an interesting question under the law - is there a differnce between a website (static with content provided by the webmaster), and a website (dynamic with content provided by individuals). Not to mention a website (dynamic consisting of interaction between individuals).
By their definition, the fly makes a decision about what it will do and hence has "free will". I.e., it's not constrained to a single choice by its environment, and it's not making a random selection between available choices.
That seems to move "choosing from a menu of choices based on conditions" (I.E. IF...THEN), as equating to free will, which seems nonsensical. Such a menu is neither constrained to a single choice, nor randomly selected.
But i did make that riff up, and notated in a number of forms to illustrate a point.
I was not treating it as a made up riff - I was treating it as you specified: "If I was to write down, for example, the button sequences you press in guitar hero to perform a song from the game, would that infringe artist copyright? e.g. does: 'green green yellow red green green green green green green green green green green green yellow green red green' infringe an artist's copyright? If so, whose? and why?" ("E.G." means for example.)
If the sequence was not an example - then your whole post is pretty much pointless.
I would agree with you partially....but, I do believe the world is a bit different than back then....not as much free time really.
There is plenty of free time available - if you choose to make it available. Your lifestyle is a matter of your own choices.
If you start learning and playing guitar when you're 12 and supported by your parents...ok. But, what if you didn't pick up the guitar till mid 20's, or 30's...hell even 40's+? At those ages, you're having to work and possibly raise a family, which just does not give you time to spend endless, un-interrupted hours listening to songs and trying to pick them out by ear.
So what? Then you go buy the appropriate books (referencing the grandparent post) or buy the appropriate downloads (referencing the great-grandparent post). Don't have any money? Well, sometimes life sucks. Check your local library and see if they have a copy you can check out, or see if your local thrift (like) mine has copies for sale cheaply, or do without.
Not to mention the fact that once you have the tabs - many long hours of practices are still going to be required. Whether or not you have the time to spend is a result of your own lifestyle choices. (And I should mention that I do not subscribe to the current belief that any time a parent spends not earning money or not interacting with his children is time wasted and makes him a bad parent.)
Tabs and all the other online resources out there can help you shortcut the learning process..it can give you a headstart into learning chord forms, music theory (I find it much easier to learn theory with real world examples to look and play with).
False. Online resources make the material easier to acess - but so far as creating a 'shortcut' to, or facilitating, the learning process, there is no difference between ink on paper or glowing dots of phosphor.
The great grandparent post attempts to frame the debate in terms of a false dichotomy, I.E. online resources or no resources - and you seem to want to follow in his footsteps. As the grandparent and I point out - this ignores the presence of a third resource, the printed page. Both you and the original poster seems to have the all too common (and false) belief that "on the interweb or didn't happen".
And go back and read how many of the guitar greats and classic bands had to live in the early days while grinding it out learning things.
The circumstances under which individual greats and bands climbed to prominence vary so wildly, I'm not sure than any useful generalization can be made or what your point is. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that goes "they suffered and so you must you", nor do I believe that the way needs to be smoothed excessively - the potholes and detours serve the useful function of weeding out the faint of heart.
Sure they were dedicated and 'made it'....but, also keep in mind, that the music and radio industry or yesterday does not exist today!! Bands got signed to record deals...and had time to evolve their music, even if no super hits on first albums in many cases. Also, these bands had artistic control over their music....
Wow. Just... wow. I don't know which to adress first - your overly rosy view of the past, or your overly pessimistic view of the present. Let's just say your view of neither have much grounding in reality.
I just don't see where the infringement comes from?
You are copying a work from one media to another - this is called a derivative work, and has long been protected under copyright law. (I.E. this isn't something just recently dreamed up by the RIAA or created under the DCMA.)
Who am I copying here? Am I copying at all, or did I just make that riff up?
A nonsensical question - as you yourself demonstrate (as you show your work) it is a direct copy of someone elses work. Changing the coding/notation system to something nonstandard does not change that fact.
If I have spent my own time trying to figure out the tabs/sheet music of a song, why shouldn't I share it with millions of others who may want that song's tabs??
Let's reverse that question - why should you be allowed to copy someone elses work and distribute it? You don't create the tab from thin air, you create it by transcribing from one media to another. That's called a derivative work, and has long been controlled/protected under copyright. (I.E. this is not something new dreamed up by the RIAA or under the DCMA.)
And I wonder what this will do to the next generation of musicians?
well, it will be like back in the 70s when they didnt have the internets to check for tabs.
(Applause) Yours is about the only sensible response in this discussion. The younger folks seem to think that if "it aint on the interweb, it doesn't exist", which is patent nonsense. Not to mention that the existence of guitar greats who had niether tabs nor formal lessons serves as existence proof that niether are required.
I wouldn't be going for a masters in music theory (or composition, I haven't quite decided) had it not been for OLGA helping me learn that I have quite a knack for music to begin with. If I had to stick to public domain stuff, I probably would have given up. I simply didn't expect it to be anything but a hobby I did when I came home from programming all day. But OLGA got me started enough to realize that, for me at least, it was worth the investment.
You treat your conclusion as if it were a fact and based on facts - it is not. It is an assumption based on assumptions.
How accurate is this? (I obviously need to go find the original survey). I know my own circle of friends - perhaps thirty people, all mid-20s, all professionals with good incomes and mixed race, and I can't think of a single person who has a landline. Maybe we're all on the cutting edge of pacific northwest young-adult culture, but the survey numbers from this study seemed way low.
It seems way low because you (mistakenly) generalize from your specific experience to the general case. In my case, among my under-30 relatives (all white but of a variety of income levels) not one has a cell phone as their primary phone line, and only about half have a cell phone at all. Among friends under 30, the numbers of cell phone users is higher, but 'pure cell phone, no landline' is still in the minority.
Plus, there is Rotary Phone Disorder to contend with. People get attached to the technologies they're familiar with, if they think they work well enough, and they won't want to waste time learning how newfangled technology works. Old people especially seem to get stuck to the form of telephony they're used to. My own grandmother was still using a rotary phone just a few years ago
No, its not that they refuse to learn new technology. Its that as you move up the demographic tree you find folks less and less willing to constantly abandon what works simply because something newer and shinier has come along.
Heck, I'm (currently) in my mid-40's, and I didn't stop regularly using my rotary until the mid-late 90's. I bought the phone in the early 80's, and consigned it to storage in the mid 90's... Last year when we bought a new house and need a phone in the garage, I dug it out and plugged it in, and it Just Worked. Meanwhile the average lifespan of the pushbutton phones I am required to have in order to deal with [censored] menus has been under two years.
So how do you handle extensions? You know, someone calls you, and you want to say, "Honey, pick up an extension." so you can talk together. Do you just 3-way the call?
Put the phone on speaker.
And then put up with the idiosyncrasies and inconvience of the tiny microphone and pretend to have a conversation.
And how do you handle guests? Do you simply assume that if they want to make a call, they just use their own cell phone?
Yes. Or they can use my cell if they must, but I'd rather they use their cell.
And so common courtesy declines yet more... (Not to mention I find it fascinating that you assume that all your guests will have a cell.)
Oh, and how do you handle devices that need to "dial home" periodically? (ReplayTV box, DirecTV box, etc.)
Use the interweb.
Assuming the device will use the internet. (Just because the one example you cite does, does not mean they all do.)
Nice find submitter. Unfortunately the article isn't in print yet, I'd like to look at what model they used (I presume it was WRF. We are able to simulate hurricanes at unprecedented resolution today, resolving convective features that just weren't there before in coarsers simulations. Coupling this numerical finding with observations makes a strong case.
Don't forget the most important step of the process - going out and looking for those convective features in a real hurricane. Predictions and models are fine, but without comparison to the real world they are useless.
I actually do understand the issue, although it may not be the one you want to talk about. The issue is people getting into trouble by blindly following bad directions from an automated system.
The second sentence quoted above is prima facie evidence that you don't understand the issue - as the issue isn't people blindly following bad directions. The issue is programmers making decisions without understanding the implications. You keep trying to change the issue because for some reason you wish to avoid the developers from taking responsibility for their product.
Even for the issue you're focusing on, you're just wrong. A design error like that is a bug, unless you really think the architect sat back, thought a while, and then decided that yes, it would be wise to use dirt roads for interstate travel. It's a lot more likely they didn't consider the classes properly
If they didn't consider the classes properly - that's a failure in design, not a bug. Period.
or have some error in determining whether such a road would ever be usable.
Yet another failure in design - as it is not the job of the software architect to determine if a road will be useable at some future date. A software architect is not privy to the plans of the various and sundry Depts of Transportation.
Still, it really doesn't matter *why* it's giving bad routes, the fact is that you can't rely 100% on a system like that. If you do, you're going to get into trouble. When you do, it's your own fault because you didn't stop to think about the limitations of your equipment.
Yes, it *does* matter why it's giving bad routes - because the bad routes are the very root of the problem. No matter how much you try to handwave and smokescreen to exonerate the developer, this doesn't change. He developed the product, and the company he worked for shipped it - and when the product is faulty, they deserve the blame for it.
Slashdot Mirror
A person's cremains weigh only a few pounds, a typical satellite anywhere from half a ton upwards. Why would the rocket have to be 'larger than usual'? (Assuming there is such a thing as 'usual', which there really isn't - [commercial] rockets come in a large variety of sizes.)
Sophisticated? You _must_ be kidding, that's about as sophisticated as a Smokey the Bear commercial. It's cheap featherweight crap.
In other words, you are as little familiar with cartoons and culture of the current era as you are with the cartoons and culture preceeding and concurrent with the original Transformers series. Simplified morality plays have been a staple of childrens television programming practically since the medium was invented. (And culturally it goes back much further than that - Grimm's Fairy Tales is nothing but a collection of such tales.)
No. The fact that you remember it only proves that... you remember it. Nothing more, nothing less.
My favorite historical medical report is this psychiatric consulation with one Sam McGee.
It's very true - and I've seen the decline within my own lifetime. (I'm currently 43.)
Doesn't seem like much of a mismatch to me - it's not like the original series was known for it's great storytelling.
Certainly the Secret Service knows this - this is why they are doing it. They have almost zero chance of detecting a remotely detonated explosive - while they have a much larger chance (but not a certainty) of catching a martyr.
And actually - that's a Good Thing, as it narrows the potential field of opponents significantly. Any security professional, if asked, would choose "decreasing the bad guys chances some small amount" instantly over "leave the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition". They know damm well they can't stop everyone, everywhere - but that they can stop most of them most places, and make life more difficult for the rest.
Which means the Black Hats now can't simply attach a bomb to a cellphone. Instead they have to perform a substantial hardware and software hack - and not only hope it works when used in the field, but hope their algorithm is clever enough to analyze the signal detonate the bomb when the President is near it - rather than already well past. Their job has now become significantly more difficult - their friction (to use the technical term) has gone up. Increasing the friction is a Good Thing.
Side comment: I love the typical Slashdot arrogance here, the automagic assumption that random amateurs somehow know more than the professionals.
Um... So what? Discrimination isn't the issue here. You're totally coming out of left field.
Which is pretty much the case here in the US.
No, because if they can conclusively trace the backdoor (using normal investigative procedures) to "Susan Smith" - fingerprints can prove it's the same "Susan Smith" who worked at the business.
Indeed. My prints are permanently on file with the Feds because I held a 'burn-your-brain-after-reading-this' acess (clearance to the uneducated) when I was in the Navy - and I have no fear of that file because, as you say, my prints will never cross their desk again.
Heck - that's more than a little nuanced for the tech crowd as well.
But it does bring up an interesting question under the law - is there a differnce between a website (static with content provided by the webmaster), and a website (dynamic with content provided by individuals). Not to mention a website (dynamic consisting of interaction between individuals).
That seems to move "choosing from a menu of choices based on conditions" (I.E. IF...THEN), as equating to free will, which seems nonsensical. Such a menu is neither constrained to a single choice, nor randomly selected.
I was not treating it as a made up riff - I was treating it as you specified: "If I was to write down, for example, the button sequences you press in guitar hero to perform a song from the game, would that infringe artist copyright? e.g. does: 'green green yellow red green green green green green green green green green green green yellow green red green' infringe an artist's copyright? If so, whose? and why?" ("E.G." means for example.)
If the sequence was not an example - then your whole post is pretty much pointless.
There is plenty of free time available - if you choose to make it available. Your lifestyle is a matter of your own choices.
So what? Then you go buy the appropriate books (referencing the grandparent post) or buy the appropriate downloads (referencing the great-grandparent post). Don't have any money? Well, sometimes life sucks. Check your local library and see if they have a copy you can check out, or see if your local thrift (like) mine has copies for sale cheaply, or do without.
Not to mention the fact that once you have the tabs - many long hours of practices are still going to be required. Whether or not you have the time to spend is a result of your own lifestyle choices. (And I should mention that I do not subscribe to the current belief that any time a parent spends not earning money or not interacting with his children is time wasted and makes him a bad parent.)
False. Online resources make the material easier to acess - but so far as creating a 'shortcut' to, or facilitating, the learning process, there is no difference between ink on paper or glowing dots of phosphor.
The great grandparent post attempts to frame the debate in terms of a false dichotomy, I.E. online resources or no resources - and you seem to want to follow in his footsteps. As the grandparent and I point out - this ignores the presence of a third resource, the printed page. Both you and the original poster seems to have the all too common (and false) belief that "on the interweb or didn't happen".
The circumstances under which individual greats and bands climbed to prominence vary so wildly, I'm not sure than any useful generalization can be made or what your point is. I don't subscribe to the school of thought that goes "they suffered and so you must you", nor do I believe that the way needs to be smoothed excessively - the potholes and detours serve the useful function of weeding out the faint of heart.
Wow. Just... wow. I don't know which to adress first - your overly rosy view of the past, or your overly pessimistic view of the present. Let's just say your view of neither have much grounding in reality.
You are copying a work from one media to another - this is called a derivative work, and has long been protected under copyright law. (I.E. this isn't something just recently dreamed up by the RIAA or created under the DCMA.)
A nonsensical question - as you yourself demonstrate (as you show your work) it is a direct copy of someone elses work. Changing the coding/notation system to something nonstandard does not change that fact.
Let's reverse that question - why should you be allowed to copy someone elses work and distribute it? You don't create the tab from thin air, you create it by transcribing from one media to another. That's called a derivative work, and has long been controlled/protected under copyright. (I.E. this is not something new dreamed up by the RIAA or under the DCMA.)
(Applause) Yours is about the only sensible response in this discussion. The younger folks seem to think that if "it aint on the interweb, it doesn't exist", which is patent nonsense. Not to mention that the existence of guitar greats who had niether tabs nor formal lessons serves as existence proof that niether are required.
You treat your conclusion as if it were a fact and based on facts - it is not. It is an assumption based on assumptions.
There's this neat tool called Google...
Nope. Just someone able to identify logical fallacies and weak arguments like in your first two posts.
It seems way low because you (mistakenly) generalize from your specific experience to the general case. In my case, among my under-30 relatives (all white but of a variety of income levels) not one has a cell phone as their primary phone line, and only about half have a cell phone at all. Among friends under 30, the numbers of cell phone users is higher, but 'pure cell phone, no landline' is still in the minority.
No, its not that they refuse to learn new technology. Its that as you move up the demographic tree you find folks less and less willing to constantly abandon what works simply because something newer and shinier has come along.
Heck, I'm (currently) in my mid-40's, and I didn't stop regularly using my rotary until the mid-late 90's. I bought the phone in the early 80's, and consigned it to storage in the mid 90's... Last year when we bought a new house and need a phone in the garage, I dug it out and plugged it in, and it Just Worked. Meanwhile the average lifespan of the pushbutton phones I am required to have in order to deal with [censored] menus has been under two years.
And then put up with the idiosyncrasies and inconvience of the tiny microphone and pretend to have a conversation.
And so common courtesy declines yet more... (Not to mention I find it fascinating that you assume that all your guests will have a cell.)
Assuming the device will use the internet. (Just because the one example you cite does, does not mean they all do.)
Don't forget the most important step of the process - going out and looking for those convective features in a real hurricane. Predictions and models are fine, but without comparison to the real world they are useless.
The second sentence quoted above is prima facie evidence that you don't understand the issue - as the issue isn't people blindly following bad directions. The issue is programmers making decisions without understanding the implications. You keep trying to change the issue because for some reason you wish to avoid the developers from taking responsibility for their product.
If they didn't consider the classes properly - that's a failure in design, not a bug. Period.
Yet another failure in design - as it is not the job of the software architect to determine if a road will be useable at some future date. A software architect is not privy to the plans of the various and sundry Depts of Transportation.
Yes, it *does* matter why it's giving bad routes - because the bad routes are the very root of the problem. No matter how much you try to handwave and smokescreen to exonerate the developer, this doesn't change. He developed the product, and the company he worked for shipped it - and when the product is faulty, they deserve the blame for it.