I thought they colaborated on both the the script and novel?
They did collaborate - but not to the extent that word usually implies. They did not write (directly) materials for the others work, but they did correspond and critique each others work.
Clarke is given screen credit as well. Check imdb.com. Seemed like a simple statement that stirred up a hornets nest.
I know Clarke got screen credit - but screen credits are quite often meaningless. I also know what Clarke has written on the topic over the decades - and it contradicts the usually circulated version. (Clarke, like a lot of classic era SF authors, also considerable non-fiction looking through the fourth wall. Very few SF readers over the years have bothered to read any of it.)
This has been going on for decades - our local fishwrap is carrying the story to of one couple who via a pen-pal club in the 50's. I'm old enough to remember folks meeting via CB. I have a buddy who met his wife because he called her when working as a telemarketer!
There are rare exceptions like 2001 but the script was by the writer of the novel and Directed by Kubrick of coarse.
Actually, that's not true at all. Kubrick wrote the script, and Clarke wrote the novel - in parallel. Clarke's writings make it quite clear that his contributions to the screenplay were minimal and that Kubrick's contributions to the novel were equally minimal, even though they extensively borrowed from each other..
Nasa over designs things, so I was dubious when they said the Mars rovers would only last 3 months. Barring any significant dust or wind storms, there is no reason why the rovers should not have lasted this long if they are solar powered and reasonably well engineered.
Of course it's the solar power that's the issue - because they expected the panels to covered in dust by now. The dust devils that cleaned them were totally unexpected.
What is unbelievable is that Nasa designed something that didn't f*ck up in the first 3 months, or even on landing.
Given NASA's track record over the last few decades - it's not unbelievable at all. A little out of the ordinary pherhaps, but not unusual.
Remember, the mars rovers we over budget and delayed, so lowering expectations is Nasa's typical method for covering up budget overruns and delays.
Right. Then the 90 day life expectation, that has been with the project from Day One, is nothing but FUD.
Or, in short, while you avoid the messy step of a reactor - you still have a large and difficult (and messy) industrial process. (I.E. nation state level, not terrorist groups.)
Which is bad enough. The question is, does this take it from being a nation state level threat confined to a dozen powerful players, down to a nation state threat within reach of nearly every nation harboring the desire?
No, it does not. As I pointed out - you still need a substantial industrial infrastructure. (Unless you are content to produce a bomb every decade or so.)
You're also assuming that some kind of bomb device is the end goal. This doesn't need to be the case. You can neutron activate many common materials. I used U->Pu as an example because it has the most obvious use. But dirty weapons could be made from almost anything.
Certainly a dirty bomb can be made from almost anything - but it takes a lot of neutrons to activate any significant quantities of material to a significant level of activity. Inside a research reactor (which has a much, much higher neutron flux) it can take from hours to days to activate a gram or two of your typical medical grade samples.
You missed the other key application... A cheap ready supply of neutrons is exactly what you need to transmute elements... Sadly, this includes the most common element transmutation carried out by mankind to date... U-238 to Pu-239. Cheap tabletop neutrons means cheap Pu-239 without the cost & mess of having a breeder fission reactor...
This will make non-proliferation all the harder.:(
Not really. You still have to mine and purify the uranium (a decidely non trivial task), then you have to bombard (literally) tons of U-238, then you have to extract the Pu from the U (extremely non trivial). Or, in short, while you avoid the messy step of a reactor - you still have a large and difficult (and messy) industrial process. (I.E. nation state level, not terrorist groups.)
You already pay your ISP for how much traffic you pay (or at least how much bandwidth is allocated to you). Want a fast pipe and stream video? You pay for it. What they're proposing is to get paid twice by the provider and once by the consumer.
That's no different than what is already done for POTS.
Every time I have been to the emergency room, they demanded that we fill out all kinds of insurance forms before they would treat myself or my family member. These were not life or death situations,
It's because they were not life or death situations that you were delayed and asked to fill out forms. OTOH, over the past five years I've had the unhappy situation to visit an emergency room four times in circumstances that were life threatening, or seemed so (once as a patient, the others as a relative), and not once was treatment delayed for forms. Not once.
Public utuilities are normally regulated. The reasons for that are well established. Companies in the utility markets are not generally are not cherry pick the most profitable customers. Instead for being allowed to operate they are also required to serve the public interest in other matters. That's why you have the public access channel on cable TV , the public alert systems on radio, why rural communities have electricity, and why the power company cant simply shut off the juice to the old/infirm without certain procedures. Some of those Odious fees on your phone bill pay for things like universal 911 connectivity.
On the other hand - I can't think of a single utility, public or otherwise, that doesn't have tiered acess and/or variable rates in one form or another.
Yet another slashdot thread where everyone immediately starts screaming "Linux!" "BSD!" the second they hear the term "security breach". Of course, it'd be nice if there were actually a lot of applications for healthcare that run on those OSs - which there aren't. OSS is pretty thin on the ground when it comes to this field.
It's not just healthcare apps... The vendor of vertical app my wife (who is the comptroller) uses in her business is switching from Linux to Windows - because their TCO is *higher* under Linux. The vendor is tired of supporting the OS as well as the app, and the businesses that run the app are tired of not being able to slide over to to $BIG_BOX_STORE, buying a box off the shelf, and being able to drop it on their network. (Instead they have to buy the box from the vendor - who wants to be in the software business, not the hardware business.)
Linux may be 'cheaper' for the individual geek, or the large business with a dedicated IT staff - but the middle sized and small business it's a different kettle of fish.
Surely the actual ICU equipment isn't networked at all, and this just inconvenienced the admin and support staff in that dept?
If the ICU in question is like the one I had the recent opportunity to visit (as a relative not an occupant!):
Even though the actual medical equipment isn't networked, where do you think the nurses use to store doctors orders, order drugs, keep notes and records, etc...?
I'm not sure how the ruling will classify (no pun intended) the ads on Craigslist - though I suspect that since there is no fee involved, Craigslist will have Common Carrier or equivalent status
The status of being a common carrier has nothing to do with fees. it has to do with acting as a publisher and exercising editorial control over the content which Craigslist does, (in the form of the flagging system).
Most likely, the suit will get a summary judgement and be punted. But it at least should make those services which DO charge think about complying with the F.H.A. Which is only, well, fair.
Why should Craigslist be allowed to violate the law because they don't charge?
If a newspaper prints discriminatory ads they're liable as they e3xercise editorial control. Thet know what they're printing and (in theory) know what they're allowed to print. They're a publisher.
True. They are also a publisher because they make information available to the public. (That's the argument bloggers are making in their efforts to be recognized as 'real journalists'.)
If I pin up an ad for a house to rent in a super market and then when somebody enquires via the telephone and I say I only want 19 yr old blond nymphomaniacs as tennants, can you sue the phone company? No. Why? As a common carrier Bell cannot control what is being said.
True. But note an important distinction, Bell facilitates communications, it does not publish. It's equally free of liability no matter who posts the ad where. You'll also note that many supermarkets do act as a sort of publisher, as they not only make the information (ad) available, they exercise a measure of editorial control. Every one with which I am familiar routinely polices it's public notice board and removes offensive or overage ads.
CL is a common carrier, not a publisher your honour. Move to dismiss.
CL provides editorial control - it sorts and categorizes the advertisements. It publishes in that it amalgamates ads and makes them public (which Bell does not). It actively edits the content of the site. CL is not a common carrier. (That's how BBS systems remained common carriers, there was no editing or moderation of posts, while Prodigy was ruled to not be a common carrier - they did provide mechanisms for editing and moderation.)
While I am against discrimination, I believe there are far too many lawyers looking for fame and fortune.
That may be true. But lawyers don't initiate suits - plaintiffs do. It's irrelevant that in this case the plaintiffs are lawyers. (And this is hardly a case that will garner either fame, or fortune.
This case is a non-starter, and the Judge should sanction the plaintiffs, IMO.
In other words, you aren't actually against discrimination - or your beliefs are plastic enough to allow you to be *for* discrimination when a group you don't care for (lawyers) are against it.
The Actual postings are not the property of craigslist, it has far too many listings per day to constantly check each and every post to make sure it follows all applicable laws for each state it is accessible in.
That's very nice - but the laws in question are Federal laws and not state laws.
Good to see this being built and Babbage being appreciated for what he should have achieved. There was a documentary on in the UK about him recently, and it basically stated that if Babbages Difference engine had been built, WW1 would have lasted about 10 minutes due to the accuracy of the gunnery tables that could have been produced.
I seriously doubt that - even today uncertainties about such variable quantities as atmospheric pressure, the effects of wind, the precise performance of the propellant charge, etc... etc... outweigh our abilities to lay the gun accurately. The tables in question are nothing but a listing of the charge weight and gun angle to reach a certain range. Longer range weapons also break the chart down by latitude in order to factor in Coriolis corrections.
Not to mention the fact that no matter how accurately you can place the round in relation to the gun, it's a Hard Problem to ensure that you know a) where the gun is and b) where the target is in relation to the gun. (GPS now solves 'a', but 'b' is still a problem.) The M1 Abrahms, for example, achieves it's phenomenal accuracy because it's shooting a high velocity round on a flat trajectory against a target whose range and bearing is precisely measured in real time. (This is the artillery equivalent of putting a gun right to someones chest.) An artillery piece firing against a target five miles away faces a much more difficult problem.
In other words, all those red cross symbols on MASH and other TV shows, on first aid kits, and in its numerous ubiquitous appearances in modern society, are apparently violations of the Geneva Conventions
Nope. The Geneva Conventions only cover the activities of nation-states in wartime. It has nothing to do with TV shows, first aid kits, etc...
The blurb mentioned that Vonage is the first Internet Telephony player to go public, but I happen to know that Packet8 is publicly traded...
No, Packet8 isn't publically traded. 8x8 Inc (EGHT) their parent corporation is however. EGHT appears to be an infrastructure and hardware provider - with the Packet8 service being one (small) part of a larger company.
* Putting people in orbit? - nope. This is what Soyuz does considerably better. It can reach higher orbit, it has longer autonomy and considerably smaller cost
So what if it can reach a higher orbit? It's not higher enough to be significant. Nor does it have longer 'autonomy'. A Soyuz has a powered lifespan of about 96 hours. (Nor can you launch a Soyuz [capsule] with a significant payload.) Soyuz is a highly optimized 'commuter car' - vastly simplified over a more capable orbiter. (But not safer, or more reliable.)
blockquote>* Putting payload into oribit? - nope. If you put only payload onto Soyuz (especially in the Soyuz/Fregat variety) it can blast it to escape velocity. Shuttle cannot. Soyuz launch cost is also considerably less.
The Shuttle can, and has, launched payloads on escape trajectory. (Galileo, Magellan.)
Yes, the cost of Soyuz is lower, nobody is arguing that - what you don't seem to realize is that you also get lower capabilities for that lower price. In addition, you don't get any significant safety or reliability increase over the Shuttle.
Mass... Driver... IMO most economical if all you are doing is heavy lifting/cargo
Sure - once they finish developing the unobtanium heatshield to protect the cargo during it's passage through the atmosphere.
no more buying million dollar per pound of thrust rocket fuel.
The current costs per pound of thrust as somewhere down around $.01/lb, not even remotely near your claim. Rocket fuel is cheap. (Last time I heard a price, the LOX and LH2 for the Shuttle cost about $10 million per launch.)
So, how could the production company have earned that kind of revenue? Without copyright. Yep, you read that right. Here's the details:
As a SWAG, lets say there was a fanbase of 10M worldwide. If just one third could be convinced to pony up $1 per episode - that's $3.3M right there. By using the internet and some sort of paypal like system (pay attention to what google is doing in this area, they seem to be thinking right along these lines) they could collect that $1 per episode and put it into an escrow account. When the balance reaches $3.3M production begins. When the episode is completed, it is released to the public domain and the money is released to the production company.
The scheme works equally well with copyright. Raise the production costs a little, and mail out a DVD in an as vanilla as possible sleeve. That way the people who paid for the content get the content. Freeloaders can go over to their buddies house, or wait for the pirates to post it. (Magazines work this way - and magazines, even without advertisements, can be quite profitable.[1])
Your scheme is designed around the business model so often touted on Slashdot: "give me everything I want, for free, without limits, without string, now now,now, NOW ". It has nothing whatsover to do with with copyright.
Such a system benefits all parties - the production company is guaranteed a profit before they invest a single dime, something completely unheard of in the world of entertainment business. In return for that guarantee, the end result is made freely available to one and all so that the people who funded the creation can share it with anyone they want without legal or moral issues.
It also hurts the distributor/creator - as it allows anyone to become a distributor. The bulk of the profits in a TV series come not from the first showing, but from the residuals. (As you point out, most TV shows don't show a profit until they syndicate.)
So - that's one idea demonstrating why copyright is indeed obsolete.
No, it's not. It's a model designed from the outset to 'prove' a particular point - by carefully avoiding examination of the model and it's relationship to the system being modeled. If scientist proposed something like (and it got on Slashdot) it would be rightfully reviled - not modded +5.
[1] And magazines of this nature are slowly entering the mainstream - mostly from the food & cooking world. The absence of advertisers is seen as an absence of bias.
Now that gaming is taking its place beside movies and music as a recognized art form,
Recognized by who precisely?
new players have to be informed of the hobby's past. Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution tells the tale of modern gaming's formation via the personal stories of the people who make them.
And why precisely do new players have to be so informed? This assumption does not flow from the assumption preceeding it. (That games are now 'recognized'. Whatever that means.
Alongside titles like Masters of Doom and Dungeons and Dreamers, Smartbomb is a stab at capturing some legitimacy for the community by creating well-informed members.
The pentultimate paragraph (whose opening sentence is quoted above) is an interesting reversal from the opening one... Now legitimacy is being 'captured', rather than being assumed to be present. But again, we have the unsupported assumption that having informed members creates... something.
There's a story I have seen in various internet forums that Wikipedia was largely funded by profits from porn sites at least in the beginning. Is that true?
Yes, it's true (in part). If you actually *use* the Wikipedia and *read* Jimmy's biography and the history of the Wikipedia - you'll find the answer you seek.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing new here, nothing to see. Move along.
Linux may be 'cheaper' for the individual geek, or the large business with a dedicated IT staff - but the middle sized and small business it's a different kettle of fish.
Even though the actual medical equipment isn't networked, where do you think the nurses use to store doctors orders, order drugs, keep notes and records, etc...?
Not to mention the fact that no matter how accurately you can place the round in relation to the gun, it's a Hard Problem to ensure that you know a) where the gun is and b) where the target is in relation to the gun. (GPS now solves 'a', but 'b' is still a problem.) The M1 Abrahms, for example, achieves it's phenomenal accuracy because it's shooting a high velocity round on a flat trajectory against a target whose range and bearing is precisely measured in real time. (This is the artillery equivalent of putting a gun right to someones chest.) An artillery piece firing against a target five miles away faces a much more difficult problem.
Yes, the cost of Soyuz is lower, nobody is arguing that - what you don't seem to realize is that you also get lower capabilities for that lower price. In addition, you don't get any significant safety or reliability increase over the Shuttle.
Your scheme is designed around the business model so often touted on Slashdot: "give me everything I want, for free, without limits, without string, now now,now, NOW ". It has nothing whatsover to do with with copyright.
It also hurts the distributor/creator - as it allows anyone to become a distributor. The bulk of the profits in a TV series come not from the first showing, but from the residuals. (As you point out, most TV shows don't show a profit until they syndicate.)No, it's not. It's a model designed from the outset to 'prove' a particular point - by carefully avoiding examination of the model and it's relationship to the system being modeled. If scientist proposed something like (and it got on Slashdot) it would be rightfully reviled - not modded +5.[1] And magazines of this nature are slowly entering the mainstream - mostly from the food & cooking world. The absence of advertisers is seen as an absence of bias.