How about using an SQL front-end tool when you code? That's what I do. Problems mostly solved. Query/Insert/Update your data and copy the resulting SQL. I use EMS and even the god-awful MS SQL Server Management Studio Express, but it's better than trying to do it by hand or research. At worst you could use myPhpNuke or something (which also shows the SQL).
I have a legitimate question. Both my father and my sister have an uncanny ability to read a poem or lyrics to a song just one time and have it committed to memory forever. Many people have photographic memory and can recall pictures in perfect detail or pages of text clearly. So, it isn't far-fetched a thought to have some genetically enhanced memory in my brain that allows me to recall video and audio in perfect detail, is it?
So here is my question: If I had the ability to do this, and I went to see a movie just one time... but afterward I replayed the movie over and over in my mind in perfect detail simply to entertain myself... would that be copyright infringement? Should I have to pay a royalty every time I think about the movie?
What if I had the ability to transfer my memory to another human being (much like telling a story verbally)?
Where is the line really; you might say well the memory is your own natural memory (even though it's enhanced). What if I had bionic memory that was mechanical and manufactured? What if I had a video/audio recording system implanted in my brain specifically to record video?
See? This is where much about intellectual property becomes a ridiculous prospect to me (and I even used to work as an intellectual property paralegal).
Are you suggesting that we are over-populated? Sure, in some places but not others. There are cities where people fight for breathing room, I know. But have you ever been to North Texas or West Texas? There's no one there! Wide open space, with infrastructure to boot! And most of Australia is just wilderness, just waiting to be tamed and civilized. There are so many remote places for people to live without being cramped and crowded it's hard for me to believe that we're over-populated globally.
Besides, I doubt that anyone who could afford this technology (meaning not 3rd world countries, that is) would make much of a difference in world population growth either way.
No, it doesn't work that way. I can guarantee it didn't take millions of dollars to patent this one invention. If it did, you wouldn't be hedging your bets on just ONE patent. And "obvious" doesn't mean "obvious" to Joe Schmo on the street -- it's "obvious to one skilled in the art." An even lower standard.
Hmm... unless it's a foreign patent, then he doesn't infringe... unless he comes to the states, which would be the one time he wouldn't be infringing! Brilliant!
It happens to be my belief that we are beings in a very large Universe Simulator who have become sentient.
Or maybe only *I* am alive and you are here for my amusement only.
So why not? We have computers and we can create objects out of nothing, and other objects that obey physical laws set up in our own virtual simulators. So could a "God" who has a sophisticated enough computer system dump a certain amount of objects as "energy" and "matter" into his virtual world, and not actually have to be IN the world.
It would explain a lot. For example, it could explain how an all-powerful "God" could move objects at whim, or traverse the ends of known time. The simulation doesn't even have to run at 1:1 scale... it could be faster or slower than that. It would explain how a "God" could be all-knowing without having to know everything: just press "pause" and go look it up in the simulator. (The simulated objects would have no idea that they have been paused!)
This also may not be the only simulator, no more than my girlfriend is the only one with a computer who plays The Sims.
For that matter, you may have only come into existence from a Saved Game only 2 seconds ago! Pre-loaded with all your "memories" of your past... and you wouldn't know!
Now we just need to figure out how to root his machine... I bet the password is "j3sus".
Whatever you think. You're right, but the problem is there is just too much (for me) to keep up with.
I just choose to ignore these new laws. Me and a few million people. If they want to arrest us, they'll have to either arrest all of us or do it lottery-style. Won't matter, I'm not afraid either way.
Fact is, if they wanted to throw you in jail, there is likely already SOME law that you have broken. Or are a suspect of breaking.
So, I don't care that my rights are trampled, because I refuse to acknowledge that they have been.
I suppose it makes me an outlaw, but only by their definition - not mine.
Many times it seems that "scientists" assert so much that they seemingly push their ideas and beliefs as much as a strong religious view. Arguably, "Science" could be considered by some to be its own religion.
I've heard wonderful fantastic stories about how the universe was created, how it exploded from a little dot no bigger than a period.
Sounds like a fairy tale to me.
If one is truly a scientist, he should say "the best evidence points to..." and then give the most-accepted scientific theory, then say, "however, it IS just one possible theory."
In my view, saying that you are agnostic to side-step the discussion of the presence of God is really also another religion. Your "God" just happens to be Physical Law.
To each his own. But I think a polite society would represent discussion of all beliefs of creation and evolution, religious and not.
Unfortunately you're not really creating any heat at all; you're just moving it around and concentrating it. Arguably you could even be cooling the planet by drawing heat from places that it normally couldn't escape and transfering it to the outside air, where it can eventually escape into the atmosphere... though I don't think this is really true either.
I think the overall net effect is zero (if you're only considering that effect.) More likely we are warming the planet from the fossil fuels we burn to power the air conditioners that end up insulating the planet and preventing heat loss.
Consider the number of parked cars there are in the world. Ever come out on a hot day only to singe your eyebrows when you open the door as a pocket of heat blasts you in the face? All that pent-up heat has to go somewhere! It must be heating the planet up more, right?
OK, I used to be a patent paralegal, dealing strictly with IP law every day. I don't understand how you can't make a game that includes NFL names.
How would they prevent ME from making a game? Patent? Nope. Can't patent names! Copyright? Nope! Can't copyright a list of names! Trademark? Maybe. But as long as you don't use the NFL logo, the Dallas Cowboys logos, or bill the game as an "official NFL team roster" or something, what legal ground do they have? You can use the team names, even the player names; there's nothing they can do.
Or even in a worst case, you could make a parody. Could be quite humorous! Dallas Thugs, Pittsburg Stealers...
Sure, anyone can sue you for anything - but that's a whole 'nother thing entirely. And most organizations don't do that.
Actually, you won't see the BBC say that, but you might read it in the LA Times, Washington Post, or NY Times and frankly I'm tired of finding opinion in news (that supposedly isn't an editorial), whether it's a TV or radio piece, or a newspaper article.
Just give me the stinkin' news, please, I'm smart enough to form my own opinion.
Those explosives were not stolen from the US Army. They were missing long before the army ever got there. And that's also very old news, not new news. They received a notice on October 10th, but that doesn't mean they were stolen on October 10th.
A. This is not a political article, therefore this post should already be moderated off-topic. But it is funny how quickly people can make anything political.
B. It takes Congress to approve going to war, not just Pres. Bush saying so! Don't put ALL of the blame on Bush when obviously some democrats had to vote for the war.
C. US wasn't the only ones saying there were WMD's in Iraq; Russian, French, and British intelligence claimed that also. Even Clinton's administration said it, and even launched a missile into an aspirin factory. (Of course, it could have just been to distract attention away from Miss Lewinsky, too.)
D. You think you are going to find WMD with only 10,000 people (many of whom aren't looking) in a country the size of Texas, when those with the goods KNOW we're coming and have lots of time to destroy/hide the evidence? And even if we did find any, wouldn't you then claim that we planted it there?
E. There are still some UN weapons inspectors who claim Hussein had WMD all along, and it's also been claimed that he funded these terrorist organizations, and that has everything to do with our buildings being blown up. Oh, no matter the fact that Hussein REALLY DID own all the oil for himself, keeping all the money for himself. If you think we went for oil, you're plainly ignorant. We don't own any of that oil, and won't ever precisely because of claims by people like you, would be ALL OVER Bush for it.
F. We aren't going to Sudan because then you'd say "Why are we in Sudan?!? We have no busines there!"
You seem to have already decided for some reason that you hate Bush, you hate "the Bush Administration" (which are just people doing their jobs the best they can) and there's probably nothing I can say to reason with you because you're so paranoid you think everything is a conspiracy. Whatever Bush does is wrong and there must be some evil reason behind it. Deal with government employees long enough and you know that is not true.
Yes, there are conspiracies. But not everything is. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Well, there is always some way you can cheat. You could print phony receipts, you could forge a bank statement... but what matters is that every business transaction you make involves some level of trust. You trust that when you pump gas in your car that it isn't water, and the guy at the counter trusts that the credit card is yours and that is really your ID (if he checks it). I don't think it's necesssarily a bad thing, either. I think a healthy society needs to be able to trust each other.
Re:Do people even understand what they're asking?
on
Reverse Graffiti
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I don't think it's obtuse at all.
I think it is quite clever creating a message by removing rather than adding.
Whether you perceive it as an advertisement or not seems irrelevant to me; it's brilliant to me because it's a message that doesn't actually exist. It's the lack of the existence that makes you perceive it.
So, please
ABCDE GHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST VWXYZ AB DEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJ LMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Perhaps I am a king of an unruly and immoral society. Nothing ever seems to get done, nothing ever improves because my subjects are killing and stealing from each other. They spend all their time fighting and not building.
Though I have tried to appeal to their humanitarian side, they will not let their differences go long enough to be productive. What will I do?
Invent a religion! I have nothing to offer them now in reward for being good citizens, so how can I get them to be civil without compensating them?
Easy! I create a set of carefully constructed rules that would flourish society, and anyone who breaks the rules is subject to eternal damnation when s/he dies, anyone who lives by the rules lives in paradise.
Plus, it helps if my religion has ways of cleansing the conscience of my subjects - we don't need any unwarranted guilt burdening productivity. I can create other elements that would help society either mentally or economically - charity, praise and music, etc.
So why is it rational for my subjects to practice the religion? Because they know that if they don't, they risk the chance of eternal damnation if I'm right, and if I'm wrong then nothing happens. If they do practice religion and I'm wrong, the worst they get is a better functioning society.
I think emotion really has little to do with it. It's really a logical decision on chance that if I'm right, you go to hell. If I'm wrong, then nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
How about using an SQL front-end tool when you code? That's what I do. Problems mostly solved. Query/Insert/Update your data and copy the resulting SQL. I use EMS and even the god-awful MS SQL Server Management Studio Express, but it's better than trying to do it by hand or research. At worst you could use myPhpNuke or something (which also shows the SQL).
Let's reduce this to simplicity. You don't get to copyright a fake ID unless you're stupid:
"This is a fake ID. Did you create this?"
"...nooooo."
"Then you aren't the author and therefore you have no claim to copyright. Nyah."
I have a legitimate question. Both my father and my sister have an uncanny ability to read a poem or lyrics to a song just one time and have it committed to memory forever. Many people have photographic memory and can recall pictures in perfect detail or pages of text clearly. So, it isn't far-fetched a thought to have some genetically enhanced memory in my brain that allows me to recall video and audio in perfect detail, is it?
So here is my question: If I had the ability to do this, and I went to see a movie just one time... but afterward I replayed the movie over and over in my mind in perfect detail simply to entertain myself... would that be copyright infringement? Should I have to pay a royalty every time I think about the movie?
What if I had the ability to transfer my memory to another human being (much like telling a story verbally)?
Where is the line really; you might say well the memory is your own natural memory (even though it's enhanced). What if I had bionic memory that was mechanical and manufactured? What if I had a video/audio recording system implanted in my brain specifically to record video?
See? This is where much about intellectual property becomes a ridiculous prospect to me (and I even used to work as an intellectual property paralegal).
Are you suggesting that we are over-populated? Sure, in some places but not others. There are cities where people fight for breathing room, I know. But have you ever been to North Texas or West Texas? There's no one there! Wide open space, with infrastructure to boot! And most of Australia is just wilderness, just waiting to be tamed and civilized. There are so many remote places for people to live without being cramped and crowded it's hard for me to believe that we're over-populated globally.
Besides, I doubt that anyone who could afford this technology (meaning not 3rd world countries, that is) would make much of a difference in world population growth either way.
So what is the problem?
Ha ha! When I view the article, "FireFox prevented this site from opening a pop-up..."
No, it doesn't work that way. I can guarantee it didn't take millions of dollars to patent this one invention. If it did, you wouldn't be hedging your bets on just ONE patent. And "obvious" doesn't mean "obvious" to Joe Schmo on the street -- it's "obvious to one skilled in the art." An even lower standard.
Hmm... unless it's a foreign patent, then he doesn't infringe... unless he comes to the states, which would be the one time he wouldn't be infringing! Brilliant!
Don't call us slutty! We'll kick your a**!
Neither.
It happens to be my belief that we are beings in a very large Universe Simulator who have become sentient.
Or maybe only *I* am alive and you are here for my amusement only.
So why not? We have computers and we can create objects out of nothing, and other objects that obey physical laws set up in our own virtual simulators. So could a "God" who has a sophisticated enough computer system dump a certain amount of objects as "energy" and "matter" into his virtual world, and not actually have to be IN the world.
It would explain a lot. For example, it could explain how an all-powerful "God" could move objects at whim, or traverse the ends of known time. The simulation doesn't even have to run at 1:1 scale... it could be faster or slower than that. It would explain how a "God" could be all-knowing without having to know everything: just press "pause" and go look it up in the simulator. (The simulated objects would have no idea that they have been paused!)
This also may not be the only simulator, no more than my girlfriend is the only one with a computer who plays The Sims.
For that matter, you may have only come into existence from a Saved Game only 2 seconds ago! Pre-loaded with all your "memories" of your past... and you wouldn't know!
Now we just need to figure out how to root his machine... I bet the password is "j3sus".
I began to wonder why this hasn't already happened.
Whatever you think. You're right, but the problem is there is just too much (for me) to keep up with.
I just choose to ignore these new laws. Me and a few million people. If they want to arrest us, they'll have to either arrest all of us or do it lottery-style. Won't matter, I'm not afraid either way.
Fact is, if they wanted to throw you in jail, there is likely already SOME law that you have broken. Or are a suspect of breaking.
So, I don't care that my rights are trampled, because I refuse to acknowledge that they have been.
I suppose it makes me an outlaw, but only by their definition - not mine.
"Badgers!? Badgers!? We don't need no stinking badgers!"
(breezy? phew! What's the next version called, "farty feline?")
You are mistaken.
The FAA banned cell phones, not the FCC.
They can work at high altitudes.
Yes, we're sorry and we feel just terrible about all of it.
But it's OK, because we asked Jesus to forgive us and his blood has washed our sins away. So we don't worry too much about it.
I respectfully disagree.
Many times it seems that "scientists" assert so much that they seemingly push their ideas and beliefs as much as a strong religious view. Arguably, "Science" could be considered by some to be its own religion.
I've heard wonderful fantastic stories about how the universe was created, how it exploded from a little dot no bigger than a period.
Sounds like a fairy tale to me.
If one is truly a scientist, he should say "the best evidence points to..." and then give the most-accepted scientific theory, then say, "however, it IS just one possible theory."
In my view, saying that you are agnostic to side-step the discussion of the presence of God is really also another religion. Your "God" just happens to be Physical Law.
To each his own. But I think a polite society would represent discussion of all beliefs of creation and evolution, religious and not.
It certainly would seem that way, wouldn't it.
Unfortunately you're not really creating any heat at all; you're just moving it around and concentrating it. Arguably you could even be cooling the planet by drawing heat from places that it normally couldn't escape and transfering it to the outside air, where it can eventually escape into the atmosphere... though I don't think this is really true either.
I think the overall net effect is zero (if you're only considering that effect.) More likely we are warming the planet from the fossil fuels we burn to power the air conditioners that end up insulating the planet and preventing heat loss.
Consider the number of parked cars there are in the world. Ever come out on a hot day only to singe your eyebrows when you open the door as a pocket of heat blasts you in the face? All that pent-up heat has to go somewhere! It must be heating the planet up more, right?
OK, I used to be a patent paralegal, dealing strictly with IP law every day. I don't understand how you can't make a game that includes NFL names.
How would they prevent ME from making a game? Patent? Nope. Can't patent names! Copyright? Nope! Can't copyright a list of names! Trademark? Maybe. But as long as you don't use the NFL logo, the Dallas Cowboys logos, or bill the game as an "official NFL team roster" or something, what legal ground do they have? You can use the team names, even the player names; there's nothing they can do.
Or even in a worst case, you could make a parody. Could be quite humorous! Dallas Thugs, Pittsburg Stealers...
Sure, anyone can sue you for anything - but that's a whole 'nother thing entirely. And most organizations don't do that.
Ditto that, Rush.
Actually, you won't see the BBC say that, but you might read it in the LA Times, Washington Post, or NY Times and frankly I'm tired of finding opinion in news (that supposedly isn't an editorial), whether it's a TV or radio piece, or a newspaper article.
Just give me the stinkin' news, please, I'm smart enough to form my own opinion.
Those explosives were not stolen from the US Army. They were missing long before the army ever got there. And that's also very old news, not new news. They received a notice on October 10th, but that doesn't mean they were stolen on October 10th.
But - does that mean then that there were WMD's?
A. This is not a political article, therefore this post should already be moderated off-topic. But it is funny how quickly people can make anything political.
B. It takes Congress to approve going to war, not just Pres. Bush saying so! Don't put ALL of the blame on Bush when obviously some democrats had to vote for the war.
C. US wasn't the only ones saying there were WMD's in Iraq; Russian, French, and British intelligence claimed that also. Even Clinton's administration said it, and even launched a missile into an aspirin factory. (Of course, it could have just been to distract attention away from Miss Lewinsky, too.)
D. You think you are going to find WMD with only 10,000 people (many of whom aren't looking) in a country the size of Texas, when those with the goods KNOW we're coming and have lots of time to destroy/hide the evidence? And even if we did find any, wouldn't you then claim that we planted it there?
E. There are still some UN weapons inspectors who claim Hussein had WMD all along, and it's also been claimed that he funded these terrorist organizations, and that has everything to do with our buildings being blown up. Oh, no matter the fact that Hussein REALLY DID own all the oil for himself, keeping all the money for himself. If you think we went for oil, you're plainly ignorant. We don't own any of that oil, and won't ever precisely because of claims by people like you, would be ALL OVER Bush for it.
F. We aren't going to Sudan because then you'd say "Why are we in Sudan?!? We have no busines there!"
You seem to have already decided for some reason that you hate Bush, you hate "the Bush Administration" (which are just people doing their jobs the best they can) and there's probably nothing I can say to reason with you because you're so paranoid you think everything is a conspiracy. Whatever Bush does is wrong and there must be some evil reason behind it. Deal with government employees long enough and you know that is not true.
Yes, there are conspiracies. But not everything is. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Well, there is always some way you can cheat. You could print phony receipts, you could forge a bank statement... but what matters is that every business transaction you make involves some level of trust. You trust that when you pump gas in your car that it isn't water, and the guy at the counter trusts that the credit card is yours and that is really your ID (if he checks it). I don't think it's necesssarily a bad thing, either. I think a healthy society needs to be able to trust each other.
Probing around Saturn is fine with me.
:)
But don't you hate it when they start probing around Uranus?
Shut the hell up!
You really want to give the cops ideas?!?
I think it is quite clever creating a message by removing rather than adding.
Whether you perceive it as an advertisement or not seems irrelevant to me; it's brilliant to me because it's a message that doesn't actually exist. It's the lack of the existence that makes you perceive it.
So, please
OK, I'll try again.
Perhaps I am a king of an unruly and immoral society. Nothing ever seems to get done, nothing ever improves because my subjects are killing and stealing from each other. They spend all their time fighting and not building.
Though I have tried to appeal to their humanitarian side, they will not let their differences go long enough to be productive. What will I do?
Invent a religion! I have nothing to offer them now in reward for being good citizens, so how can I get them to be civil without compensating them?
Easy! I create a set of carefully constructed rules that would flourish society, and anyone who breaks the rules is subject to eternal damnation when s/he dies, anyone who lives by the rules lives in paradise.
Plus, it helps if my religion has ways of cleansing the conscience of my subjects - we don't need any unwarranted guilt burdening productivity. I can create other elements that would help society either mentally or economically - charity, praise and music, etc.
So why is it rational for my subjects to practice the religion? Because they know that if they don't, they risk the chance of eternal damnation if I'm right, and if I'm wrong then nothing happens. If they do practice religion and I'm wrong, the worst they get is a better functioning society.
I think emotion really has little to do with it. It's really a logical decision on chance that if I'm right, you go to hell. If I'm wrong, then nothing.