However there is only one possible orbit which is stationary relative to earth. And this orbit is already very full (full in the sense of safety spaces between the satellites).
Because JOE-USER, secretary, grandma does not need any of these features, and does not know how to install software, yet would not dare to replace any windows component for some "strange" features.
And these "Users" people who really just *use* the computer, are over 90% of the market. BUMP!
Well you think the RIAA leaves a cinema owner a choice, once it is well established? It will be a have-to if you want allowness to show their movies.
The whole big-brother-system-we-watch-you-in-the-dark will not work if you can choose as owener not to hire these... Since then it's your cinema the movies get bootlegged from, and then shared in the internet, making all the other guards a worthless expense.
There are far more dimensions on the scale than merly the period.
I agree that 2:07 hours is too short:o) However 90 years is IMHO also far too long. (i.e. why do the beatles still have to be copyrighted? Aren't they part of our general culture nowadays?
Other dimenions would be sitting in the movie writing down yourself a transcript. Copyright violation? Currently - Yes
Identifying and publishing scores to music titles for other to learn on their piano at home, Copyright violation? Currently - Yes
Making yourself a private copy, (crappy) movie of a performance show? Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Making a copy of your CD to be played on your minidisc in your car. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Covering any song from the last 90 years with your private band at your sisters wedding. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Making your private video with your main actor your dog. As background music you use any song from the last 90 years. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
How about recording radio transmission? Highly in discussion with the approaching digital radio sending in CD quality. Copyright Violation? On casette days no, Nowadays - it has become a Yes!
I think you got the idea what I ment with the scale.
Well I hope as an AC you still read this, but I guess you don't.
I totally agree with what you say, except to the subliminal attack in the beginning.
To bring it to the point, law is made by humans! by us! It's not given exogenic.
And I challenge the copyright law as it is currently in place. Not copyright at all, it's good. But now to a period of almost 100 years? Is it really that necessary? Why am I not allowed to make a home video with beatles music in it (because beatles is copyrighted), I may not even put lyrics of the beatles anywhere, you know that everybody you're singing "happy birthday" in a group it's actually a copyright infringement and thus illegal (by writing)? But as you pointed out law is also adjusted by execution, so it just isn't executed.
And honestly I don't want any security guards in my cinema scanning the cinema with night vision appliances, because someone kit could make a video of it. It's not even said he wanted to put it in the internet. Maybe he just wanted to show it to his friends who were not given the money for the cinema to watch the movie. Now he is facing 3 years of arrest for making a crapy-movie-record?
As the very original poster posted meaning, it's okay, because it's THE LAW.
Again you made a long story, in which I see a similar point, we're not subordinates of the law, we make the law ourselves, and we're responsible for it.
I'm sorry, thanks for the reminder it's a common error here. I'm a native german speaker, and have a hard time coping with english, altough I'm constantly trying to improve it.
Well no, since you proparly read my post before the parent post it got a bit out of the context.
I aimed to reply to the parent post which justified the kid beeing arrested without any objective discussion to sense, because it is the law point out. And the law is the law, is the law, is the law, is...
Law constantly needs to be questioned. And never is because it is as it is. There are things that are quite obvious and stuff that isn't
The people here are brining the obvious stuff to justify unobvious clauses as they are currently. And calling me beeing against all the law as whole and thus impyling that I'm possibly a murderer because I question total supervision and arresting of children.
Hi! The greeks knew long before, but they weren't catholic, so the catholic world took until 1996 when the pope finally officially admitted that galileo might have been right after all.
Galileo moved the sun in the center of the system, made the earth spinng around itself, and not the universe around it, that was the actual crime not so much for calling it round.
While in Galileos model the planets made perfect cycles around the sun, Copernicus corrected that by noticing that they are eclipses, and postulating the various laws around that.
Hey, I didn't want to express that this law is necessarly false. I merly pointed out that just because something is THE LAW like the original poster said, it's not necessarly a right thing. History has shown us this many times in a painful way.
I'm for a system that allows maximum welfare for all (including movie watchers and producers). I agree that without any restrictions to copyright and/or exhibition movies could not be financed, which would be a pity and hurting welfare. However on the other hand granting maximum copyright/exhibition right to the procuders moves the scale a big way to the procuders, allowing whole cities to live from this, and people owning islands from the revenues taken from the public.
I confess that I'm downloading sometimes movies and music to watch and hear it. Yet I still love to make an evening going with my girl-friend to the cinema, buying (expensive) pop-corn and all that, altough I have the movie at home and could watch it on my 17" screen also eating cheap popcorn from the supermarket.
If for example a system living from the revenues of offering good evenings for people allows it to bring in the revenue for allowing the movies to be produced, I don't see the additional public welfare by forbidding private copies, except for some rich guys to be even more richers by selling video tapes CD's that self destruct and all that.
Don't you think the word "stealing" is in this case a bit falsly borrowed, stealing is TAKING AWAY. Now if I record something, whom did I what away so his has any less?
I think it's all a more complicated issue, since movies and any thus data like this are not normal goods in consumption. For example an apple is a normal, if I eat it, you can't, if take it you got one less. Movies are a totally different case, or for example the television set at home is the same problematic. If I consum it, I don't disable you consuming it also. Say one family member bought a TV, is it legimate for other family members to turn it on when he isn't at home? What your oppinion to this? On one hand he was the one who bought it, on the other hand he does not loose anything if some other family watches his favorite show when he is in the gym. It's more the problem of the freerider to calling it stealing.
And honestly this has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into my house, raping my wive, TAKING my TV and Computer, and setting it to fire. Your throwing pure emotional random stuff in it.
For example I would agree if you say it has something to do with resting in a hot summer noon in the shadow of MY tree next to my house. You didn't pay for the tree, yet you benefit from it without compensating me.
Where does law come from? Is it god given? Is it perfect? unquestionable?
Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches. Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat. Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing. America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.
Do you think all of them should be man enough to face the penalities? justified? THE LAW is unquestionable?
Yes I do, you can buy the scripte "arbeits- und sozialrecht" at university:o).
But actually in reality it's a more compilcated than I wrote before. Generally you may speak out admonishment, but I think generally they are not necessary when you strongly violate your contract conditions.
There is an explizit prohibition to dismissal under conditions, but as an only exception the "dismissal with the option of altered conditions of employment".
This clause has things in mind to hinder threatening with notice e.g. you want to see the doctor in worktime (which is part or your rights in the EU), or when you have to leave work early because you must show up on court (also anemployee's rights) and so on.
"""I have to write it fast, it has to be small (less typing)"""
Why can't programmers just learn 10-finger typing like every secretary can, I don't see why they also don't teach it as a subject on informatic schools or studies, it is a core skill of what you're doing everyday.
And when you once learned to write using more than 4 fingers in an eagle-search-system you won't mind if a programming language is a bit more explizit, in favour of readability and maintance
Just to quote Linux Torvalds on his perception:
"""Saving on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong. """
Well why not? With a windows installation it's not different, it erases LILO/GRUP even without any asking. If you don't install LILO/GRUP in the bootsektor but on a partition, windows takes "owner ship" to be the bootable partition after every boot, in this case, boot 1 time windows -> LILO gone.
When I'm looking on the discussion on the top I got the feeling this was just the intention the artice poster had in mind. Using/. as weapon for his childisch ambitions to bring down a side. And what did we do? Just followed his request, and he now thinks in his moron wolrd he is THE BOMB. How does it feel being tricked by a child?
Denial is also one way of handling this fundumental problem:)
As I said, I don't think these people wouldn't spent actually all their science fiction fantasies on how to possibly ultimately dispose the highly radiactive waste, if there were actually any suitable soluation, and if it weren't a key-problem after all.
""""The safest thing to do with the rest is to seal the whole lot up into vitrified blocks and make a big pile in the middle of some desert somewhere. It won't get into the ecosystem, there are no animals or people to interfere, and you've got easy access in case you need it. It'll just sit there.
Alternative solutions are to put the stuff at the bottom of a very deep hole in a subduction zone: eventually it'll get sucked into the mantle and dissipite. Since the mantle is loaded with radioactive isotopes anyway, then it's pretty much gone. Or you could take it off the planet entirely. This would actually be cheap, safe, and would get rid of it once and for all --- but there's perfectly sensible ways of recycling the bulk of it that would be even cheaper.""""
This is just the weak point, it's all actually just speculation isn't it? Space - Desert - Deep Sea - Throw it in the sun
Its all what COULD be possible done, since fiction in other words, there is no real usable solution to what to do with the long term radioactive waste. It's not solved yet, you just can't put it an abandoned mines, or on sea ground, there are earthquakes you know, there's attrition to any kind of mantle.
Do you know how the situation in europe currently is? We don't have an ultimate disposal place, we're currently shifting it in circules around the continent since nobody wants them, and yes this includes GB, it even "buyed" huge amounts as far I reckon. (It's a good with negative value, meaing they got quite massive money for taking it).
I recently watched a doku about an chemical ultimate disposal place in germany, they picked a rather seldom black chalk area for a mine, since it absorbs earthquakes, they are filling the mine with all kind of hezourdous chemicals. They are crafting a stone wall with an symbolic index of the mine, since future generations hundrets (thousends?) of years away must still handle that. PS. they take no radiactives...
We're currently happily generating longterm radiactive waste, with the opinion, well we will eventually find a real solution to it sometime....
Actually I find paragraph (c) of the orignal AC very insightful. When the government spends money on a project like mars rover, you have should not only the best-way-to-get-job-done route in mind. Like many modern (neolibarlistic) economiest say, public money should be spent on GROWING sectors and sectors with a better health spread. Actually they are also funding research with this.
Now maybe nuclear tech maybe a way to solve this particual problem better, however in general we know today it's a dead end. Nuclear power does not pay of in the long run! I also rather see public money going into solar tech instead of nuclear technology.
Why do I call it a dead end? Because when economically clalculating nuclear powerplants as project novists always calculate the break-even point. Thats a wrong calculation. You always have to take into account ALL payments that a project involves even those after break even point, and those after closure of the plant. And they are enourmous (e.g. to dismantle a nuclear powerplant costs more than 20 times than the costs to build it first place. Also we have nuclear waste FOREVER, with every year into all future we've to carry the costs. (calculated as irredeemable costs).
If take that all into account the total revenue of the project build-a-nuclear-power-plant is very very small, if positive at all. Today we live very well with that, since the costs are to arrive in further future.
Even if you're not convinced and still arguing for nuclear technology, this is okay. But just remember, never argue and think with break-even-points! Think of all payments involved!
(((Okay can't resist to make a funny story of it. If you're "investing" in a girl, we say jokingly one should hold in mind the total revenue of the project is positive, if you pick up a one-night-stand, spending a night forgetting prevention, you have a positive break-even-point very early (same night), but if you consider all "payments" of that project including all posible future ones I would dissociate from that project:o)
Slashdot Mirror
However there is only one possible orbit which is stationary relative to earth. And this orbit is already very full (full in the sense of safety spaces between the satellites).
Well actually this ability is quite interesting.
Ever wondered what wieght anti-mass has? Is it positive is it negative?
Fact is, WE DON'T KNOW!
We presume, that it has positive mass just exactly as mass has, but we don't know, because we can't meassure it.
Well have you ever considered, now I'm going out and I'm gonna kill all ants that exist?
This sounds like Commander Data babbling on Startrek nobody understands but sounds impressive smart.
I just say, recalibrate the quantum-warp-spools so they do not emmit so much tachions!
Because JOE-USER, secretary, grandma does not need any of these features, and does not know how to install software, yet would not dare to replace any windows component for some "strange" features.
And these "Users" people who really just *use* the computer, are over 90% of the market. BUMP!
Europe should in the first place never have colonized America, killing the american natives and the culture they were developing.
Well it were the wrong examples.
..and so on...
:o)
Vi vs. Emacs (okay that was a good one)
C++ vs. C
Gnome vs. KDE
Linux vs. Bsd
Mach-Kernel vs. Monolithic
Perl vs. Pyhton
I would like to see any rational discussion about these
How extra smart-***-thinking?
Well you think the RIAA leaves a cinema owner a choice, once it is well established? It will be a have-to if you want allowness to show their movies.
The whole big-brother-system-we-watch-you-in-the-dark will not work if you can choose as owener not to hire these... Since then it's your cinema the movies get bootlegged from, and then shared in the internet, making all the other guards a worthless expense.
There are far more dimensions on the scale than merly the period.
:o) However 90 years is IMHO also far too long. (i.e. why do the beatles still have to be copyrighted? Aren't they part of our general culture nowadays?
I agree that 2:07 hours is too short
Other dimenions would be sitting in the movie writing down yourself a transcript. Copyright violation? Currently - Yes
Identifying and publishing scores to music titles for other to learn on their piano at home, Copyright violation? Currently - Yes
Making yourself a private copy, (crappy) movie of a performance show? Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Making a copy of your CD to be played on your minidisc in your car. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Covering any song from the last 90 years with your private band at your sisters wedding. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
Making your private video with your main actor your dog. As background music you use any song from the last 90 years. Copyright Violation? Currently - Yes
How about recording radio transmission? Highly in discussion with the approaching digital radio sending in CD quality. Copyright Violation? On casette days no, Nowadays - it has become a Yes!
I think you got the idea what I ment with the scale.
Well I hope as an AC you still read this, but I guess you don't.
I totally agree with what you say, except to the subliminal attack in the beginning.
To bring it to the point, law is made by humans! by us! It's not given exogenic.
And I challenge the copyright law as it is currently in place. Not copyright at all, it's good. But now to a period of almost 100 years? Is it really that necessary? Why am I not allowed to make a home video with beatles music in it (because beatles is copyrighted), I may not even put lyrics of the beatles anywhere, you know that everybody you're singing "happy birthday" in a group it's actually a copyright infringement and thus illegal (by writing)? But as you pointed out law is also adjusted by execution, so it just isn't executed.
And honestly I don't want any security guards in my cinema scanning the cinema with night vision appliances, because someone kit could make a video of it. It's not even said he wanted to put it in the internet. Maybe he just wanted to show it to his friends who were not given the money for the cinema to watch the movie. Now he is facing 3 years of arrest for making a crapy-movie-record?
As the very original poster posted meaning, it's okay, because it's THE LAW.
Again you made a long story, in which I see a similar point, we're not subordinates of the law, we make the law ourselves, and we're responsible for it.
I'm sorry, thanks for the reminder it's a common error here. I'm a native german speaker, and have a hard time coping with english, altough I'm constantly trying to improve it.
Well no, since you proparly read my post before the parent post it got a bit out of the context.
...
I aimed to reply to the parent post which justified the kid beeing arrested without any objective discussion to sense, because it is the law point out. And the law is the law, is the law, is the law, is
Law constantly needs to be questioned. And never is because it is as it is. There are things that are quite obvious and stuff that isn't
The people here are brining the obvious stuff to justify unobvious clauses as they are currently. And calling me beeing against all the law as whole and thus impyling that I'm possibly a murderer because I question total supervision and arresting of children.
Hi! The greeks knew long before, but they weren't catholic, so the catholic world took until 1996 when the pope finally officially admitted that galileo might have been right after all.
Galileo moved the sun in the center of the system, made the earth spinng around itself, and not the universe around it, that was the actual crime not so much for calling it round.
While in Galileos model the planets made perfect cycles around the sun, Copernicus corrected that by noticing that they are eclipses, and postulating the various laws around that.
Hey, I didn't want to express that this law is necessarly false. I merly pointed out that just because something is THE LAW like the original poster said, it's not necessarly a right thing. History has shown us this many times in a painful way.
I'm for a system that allows maximum welfare for all (including movie watchers and producers). I agree that without any restrictions to copyright and/or exhibition movies could not be financed, which would be a pity and hurting welfare. However on the other hand granting maximum copyright/exhibition right to the procuders moves the scale a big way to the procuders, allowing whole cities to live from this, and people owning islands from the revenues taken from the public.
I confess that I'm downloading sometimes movies and music to watch and hear it. Yet I still love to make an evening going with my girl-friend to the cinema, buying (expensive) pop-corn and all that, altough I have the movie at home and could watch it on my 17" screen also eating cheap popcorn from the supermarket.
If for example a system living from the revenues of offering good evenings for people allows it to bring in the revenue for allowing the movies to be produced, I don't see the additional public welfare by forbidding private copies, except for some rich guys to be even more richers by selling video tapes CD's that self destruct and all that.
Don't you think the word "stealing" is in this case a bit falsly borrowed, stealing is TAKING AWAY. Now if I record something, whom did I what away so his has any less?
I think it's all a more complicated issue, since movies and any thus data like this are not normal goods in consumption. For example an apple is a normal, if I eat it, you can't, if take it you got one less. Movies are a totally different case, or for example the television set at home is the same problematic. If I consum it, I don't disable you consuming it also. Say one family member bought a TV, is it legimate for other family members to turn it on when he isn't at home? What your oppinion to this? On one hand he was the one who bought it, on the other hand he does not loose anything if some other family watches his favorite show when he is in the gym. It's more the problem of the freerider to calling it stealing.
And honestly this has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into my house, raping my wive, TAKING my TV and Computer, and setting it to fire.
Your throwing pure emotional random stuff in it.
For example I would agree if you say it has something to do with resting in a hot summer noon in the shadow of MY tree next to my house. You didn't pay for the tree, yet you benefit from it without compensating me.
Where does law come from? Is it god given? Is it perfect? unquestionable?
Remember that witches BROKE THE LAW by beeing witches.
Gallileo BROKE THE LAW asserting the world isn't flat.
Some centries ago any black guy BROKE THE LAW asserting he isn't an inferior beeing.
America BROKE THE LAW by declaring independency to britain.
Do you think all of them should be man enough to face the penalities? justified? THE LAW is unquestionable?
Yes I do, you can buy the scripte "arbeits- und sozialrecht" at university :o).
:(
But actually in reality it's a more compilcated than I wrote before. Generally you may speak out admonishment, but I think generally they are not necessary when you strongly violate your contract conditions.
There is an explizit prohibition to dismissal under conditions, but as an only exception the "dismissal with the option of altered conditions of employment".
This clause has things in mind to hinder threatening with notice e.g. you want to see the doctor in worktime (which is part or your rights in the EU), or when you have to leave work early because you must show up on court (also anemployee's rights) and so on.
But honestly it still happens a lot
Is "threatening to sue" not blackmailling and thus illegal? I don't know for sure, but remember it is actually illegal in the US...
I.e. "threatening to fire somebody" is illegal in the EU. You may just do it or leave it, but it is explicit illegal to put it under any condition..
"""I have to write it fast, it has to be small (less typing)"""
Why can't programmers just learn 10-finger typing like every secretary can, I don't see why they also don't teach it as a subject on informatic schools or studies, it is a core skill of what you're doing everyday.
And when you once learned to write using more than 4 fingers in an eagle-search-system you won't mind if a programming language is a bit more explizit, in favour of readability and maintance
Just to quote Linux Torvalds on his perception:
"""Saving on typing
is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main issue when you're
coding, you're doing something seriously wrong. """
Mathematicans don't die, they just loose some of their functions....
Well why not? With a windows installation it's not different, it erases LILO/GRUP even without any asking. If you don't install LILO/GRUP in the bootsektor but on a partition, windows takes "owner ship" to be the bootable partition after every boot, in this case, boot 1 time windows -> LILO gone.
When I'm looking on the discussion on the top I got the feeling this was just the intention the artice poster had in mind. Using /. as weapon for his childisch ambitions to bring down a side. And what did we do? Just followed his request, and he now thinks in his moron wolrd he is THE BOMB. How does it feel being tricked by a child?
Denial is also one way of handling this fundumental problem :)
As I said, I don't think these people wouldn't spent actually all their science fiction fantasies on how to possibly ultimately dispose the highly radiactive waste, if there were actually any suitable soluation, and if it weren't a key-problem after all.
""""The safest thing to do with the rest is to seal the whole lot up into vitrified blocks and make a big pile in the middle of some desert somewhere. It won't get into the ecosystem, there are no animals or people to interfere, and you've got easy access in case you need it. It'll just sit there.
Alternative solutions are to put the stuff at the bottom of a very deep hole in a subduction zone: eventually it'll get sucked into the mantle and dissipite. Since the mantle is loaded with radioactive isotopes anyway, then it's pretty much gone. Or you could take it off the planet entirely. This would actually be cheap, safe, and would get rid of it once and for all --- but there's perfectly sensible ways of recycling the bulk of it that would be even cheaper.""""
This is just the weak point, it's all actually just speculation isn't it? Space - Desert - Deep Sea - Throw it in the sun
Its all what COULD be possible done, since fiction in other words, there is no real usable solution to what to do with the long term radioactive waste. It's not solved yet, you just can't put it an abandoned mines, or on sea ground, there are earthquakes you know, there's attrition to any kind of mantle.
Do you know how the situation in europe currently is? We don't have an ultimate disposal place, we're currently shifting it in circules around the continent since nobody wants them, and yes this includes GB, it even "buyed" huge amounts as far I reckon. (It's a good with negative value, meaing they got quite massive money for taking it).
I recently watched a doku about an chemical ultimate disposal place in germany, they picked a rather seldom black chalk area for a mine, since it absorbs earthquakes, they are filling the mine with all kind of hezourdous chemicals. They are crafting a stone wall with an symbolic index of the mine, since future generations hundrets (thousends?) of years away must still handle that. PS. they take no radiactives...
We're currently happily generating longterm radiactive waste, with the opinion, well we will eventually find a real solution to it sometime....
Actually I find paragraph (c) of the orignal AC very insightful. When the government spends money on a project like mars rover, you have should not only the best-way-to-get-job-done route in mind. Like many modern (neolibarlistic) economiest say, public money should be spent on GROWING sectors and sectors with a better health spread. Actually they are also funding research with this.
:o)
Now maybe nuclear tech maybe a way to solve this particual problem better, however in general we know today it's a dead end. Nuclear power does not pay of in the long run! I also rather see public money going into solar tech instead of nuclear technology.
Why do I call it a dead end? Because when economically clalculating nuclear powerplants as project novists always calculate the break-even point. Thats a wrong calculation. You always have to take into account ALL payments that a project involves even those after break even point, and those after closure of the plant. And they are enourmous (e.g. to dismantle a nuclear powerplant costs more than 20 times than the costs to build it first place. Also we have nuclear waste FOREVER, with every year into all future we've to carry the costs. (calculated as irredeemable costs).
If take that all into account the total revenue of the project build-a-nuclear-power-plant is very very small, if positive at all. Today we live very well with that, since the costs are to arrive in further future.
Even if you're not convinced and still arguing for nuclear technology, this is okay. But just remember, never argue and think with break-even-points! Think of all payments involved!
(((Okay can't resist to make a funny story of it. If you're "investing" in a girl, we say jokingly one should hold in mind the total revenue of the project is positive, if you pick up a one-night-stand, spending a night forgetting prevention, you have a positive break-even-point very early (same night), but if you consider all "payments" of that project including all posible future ones I would dissociate from that project