Yes, because consumers who are replacing old machines don't have XP. They probably have Windows 98 or WIndows ME. They don't want to pay a premium for a Mac and shell out for a copy of XP. Besides, at least for now, using both OSes requires constant rebooting, which makes the idea pretty much a non-starter.
And, FWIW, the "Macs are more secure" marketing point goes right out the window the moment you run Windows on your Mac, which further reduces the incentive to pay the Mac premium.
Heat pumps are basically interchangeable commodities. The differences between Windows and Macs are rather greater. Give up all your software and everything you have learned about how to use your computer? It's a lot easier just to stick with what you're used to.
Maybe if Macs could run the consumer's old Windows stuff seamlessly (i.e., without a reboot and a copy of the latest version of Windows, which the consumer probably doesn't have if (s)he's replacing an old machine) it would be a more appealing option to the average replacing-a-broken-down-computer consumer.
We've hardly begun to scratch the surface of means for making DRM obsolete. People who invest in DRM Just Don't Get It(tm).
Some day -- Ten years? Less? -- we'll have displays and camcorders of such quality that we can just stick a camcorder in front of a monitor and it will be capable of making a near-perfect recording of anything the display can render for viewing by human eyes.
Then the industry will start putting watermarks in content and successfully lobby Congress for legislation requiring that all camcorders must contain technology to recognize the watermark and refuse to record anything containing it. Pre-legislation camcorders (as well as post-legislation camcorders tampered to bypass the protection) will be declared contraband and subject to confiscation.
A few decades after that, we'll have transhumanist (Or is it posthumanist? I always get them mixed up.) technology that we can put in our eyes, ears, and brains to record anything we see or hear, recall and replay it into our minds upon demand, and produce copies for other people. The potential applications of such technology will be ginormous, but one of those applications includes making copies of movies and music, so it will be forbidden for such technology to be possessed or used by anybody besides Big Brother. Either that or they'll stick a Clipper chip in it so they can monitor you for illegal activity like remembering a movie that you only paid to see once.
Give it up, DRM folks. Even with Congress's nose inserted firmly into your anal sphincter, your loss of this war is inevitable. You got all up in arms because technology advanced to the point where the average consumer can produce perfect or near-perfect reproductions of images and sounds. For the moment, the technology is still limited enough that, with help from the government, you can severely restrict the behavior of consumers (both legitimate and otherwise). That situation won't last long. We will have the ability to record anything we see or hear and to transmit copies around the world at 10 Gbps. DRM is already on life support, and some day -- within ten years, I'd guess -- it will be dead as a concept. You can either learn to live without it, or die with it.
Next time you see a "downloading a movie is theft" commercial, just turn to the people around you and remind them, "This is coming from the same people who accuse you of theft when you fast forward through the commercials."
How long before even the average man on the street (i.e., not the Slashdot crowd and our ilk) realize what a complete joke these people are?
Get a clue, ABC. You can campaign against movie downloaders, at least for now. It's like campaigning against immigrants or homosexuals. They're minorities, they're generally perceived as different, and you can find a sympathetic ear when you tell the average person that these minorities are to blame for Mr. Average's problems. However, when you attack Mr. Average in a way that he's going to feel, he's going to make sure you feel it, too.
In the European market things like design and elegance and simplicity are percieved to be important. Therefore a "good" remote control for the european market has very few buttons.
"Fewer buttons" ought not to be confused with greater simplicity.
Consider the example of a DVD player remote control that I own -- many DVD player remote controls work in the same way:
The fast-forward/rewind buttons are overloaded to control the chapter skip functions. Press and release quickly for chapter skip. Press and hold briefly for 2x ff/rw. Press and hold a little longer for 4x, etc. I don't know how many times I have fast-forwarded or rewound faster than I meant to, or worse, skipped to the next/previous chapter when I meant to fast-forward or rewind.
Another DVD player I own has a remote with separate buttons for chapter skip. Press the Next Chapter button to skip to the next chapter. Press the Fast Forward button to scan forward at 2x. Press again to scan faster.
The latter has more buttons, but is far easier to use, and results in fewer mistakes.
Overloading the same functions onto fewer buttons does not a simpler control make. It may make a control that looks a little less intimidating at first glance, but when used it quickly becomes more aggravating.
For the sake of humanity, someone will be there to continue medicine... Yeah, that someone would almost certainly be the United States government. Would that be better?
Re:Patnets brought to their logical conclusion
on
Supreme Court spurns RIM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, it really is that simple, it only takes the tinist ammount of study to understand that creation and invnetion will continue at their pace if patents go to hell where they belong.
Oh, sure. Pharmaceutic companies would continue to invest eight-, nine-, and even ten-figure sums into developing a drug knowing that, once developed, any competitor could produce and sell exactly the same thing without having invested the GNP of Albania in developing it.
It only takes the tiniest amount of study to understand that, without patents, the pharmaceutic industry would cease to exist. A lot of other technology-based industries would also be crippled or destroyed.
Suppose I buy a Mac because I like a lot of its features, many of which depend on.Mac. I figure on paying the price of the original purchase, plus $99/yr. Then, in the future, Apple jacks up the price to $249/yr. In that case, I either end up paying more than I anticipated at the time of the purchase, or I lose some of the features that motivated the purchase in the first place. Either way, I would feel kind of screwed.
Should Apple provide a way for subscribers to lock in a price for, say, five or ten years?
Summary being that sad workers make less errors, presumably because they focus harder to block out the relentless hell of their lives.
The article doesn't give much detail on the experimental methods, but I certainly get the impression that it focuses on "I'm having a shiatty day" sadness rather than "I hate my life" sadness.
I imagine that the long-term- vs. short-term-sadness distinctinction is very significant, and probably workers who are trying to block out the "relentless hell" of a bad day are better workers than those who are trying to block out the "relentless hell of their lives."
I've worked at places that did this well, and I've worked at places that did it poorly.
At a place that did it poorly, the employer tried to "lighten up" the place with all kinds of stupid shtick and encouraging the employees to get into the act. Naturally, employees felt pressured to participate and to pretend to think it was fun, when it wasn't. (Cue Bill Lumbergh saying, "Friday is Hawaiian shirt day, so, you know, if you want to you can go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt, and jeans.") This didn't exactly improve morale.
If you want to reduce stress, give your employees the freedom to be themselves. This starts with you being yourself. Don't try to be funny if you have no sense of humor, but if you do have one, use it. Don't try to be silly if you're naturally stoic by demeanor. Don't try to be a cheerleader if that's not who you are. If you're anything but genuine, and you have smart employees, they'll sense it, and that sends the message that this is what's expected, and your employees will feel stressed by it, though they may be unable to articulate the source of the stress (even to themselves). So just let your natural personality shine through.
Unless, of course, you're naturally a complete jerk. In that case, the best thing to do is to shoot yourself in the head. Your employees will love you for it.
Nobody knows how much data the computer would be required to hold. The "analysis" that "proves" it impossible proceeds from the assumption that the perfect computer would have to store a representation of every possible position.
AFAIK, it has not been disproven that there is a yet-to-be-discovered invariant, computable by real-world computational power, that determines whether any given position is a win for white, win for black, or draw.
Let's see if we can raise about $80 million, half of which will go to funding the project for as long as it remains viable, and the other half of which will go to outsting the jackasses responsible for killing the federal funding.
Gee, we would have missed out on Anomalous acceleration if we had pulled the plug the first time they wanted to. (Have they adequately explained that yet?)
One proposed explanation is here. I have no idea what the consensus opinion is.
BTW, it was Pioneer, not Voyager, that revealed the phenomenon.
OK, so somebody found two documents that have the same digest. This doesn't mean that they can construct a document to match any given digest. Even it did, the document so constructed would be gibberish.
Does this discovery point to any kind of meaningful exploit?
I believe that if you re-evaluate your second and third examples from this perspective you'll see that the results make a lot more sense.
It makes sense that promoting a candidate to first place on my ballot could cause that candidate to lose?
Your first example is somewhat artificial as preference relationships tend to be undirected, i.e. if Minor voters like Major1 then Major1 voters ought to like Minor on the grounds that they are similar (consider Democrats voting Republican ahead of the Greens).
If I am your nearest neighbor, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are my nearest neighbor.
Image that Minor is the "extreme liberal" party, Major1 is the "moderate liberal" party, and Major2 is the "moderate conservative" party. The moderate liberals may be split on the question of second choice: some would prefer the extreme liberal to the moderate conservative, while others would prefer the moderate conservative to the extreme liberal.
Personally, I am a voter who would generally vote the Democrats first, and the Republicans second, ahead of the Greens. I know many people who feel the same way. It's not at all unrealistic.
It sounds good, if you don't think about it too much, but a little analysis demonstrates a lot of serious problems.
If you assume that the political landscape continues to looks pretty much like it does now -- two dominant parties, and a number of minor parties that don't get much attention -- then it works great. Minor-party enthusiasts can cast their largely symbolic votes for their minor-party candidates, who will get eliminated in the early rounds, and in the end it comes down to a two-way contest between the major parties.
But since the whole point of IRV is supposedly to change that political landscape, one certainly ought not to assume that the landscape would remain the same under IRV in attempting to justify IRV. So consider what happens when a minor party becomes strong enough to challenge the more-sympathetic major party:
30% like Minor > Major1 > Major2
10% like Major1 > Minor > Major2 15% like Major1 > Major2 > Minor 45% like Major2 > Major1 > Minor
Under IRV, Major1 would be the first candidate eliminated. Then Major2 would defeat Minor by a vote of 60-40. However, Major1 could defeat Major2 by a vote of 55-45. The 30% who support Minor could bring about a more desireable outcome by ranking Major1 ahead of Minor on their ballots. So they are faced with the same dilemma that they face in the existing system: vote for their favorite candidate, or vote for their preference among the two candidates who can win?
Another illustrations of problems with IRV:
Imagine the following votes:
6: A > B > C 5: B > A > C 4: C > B > A 2: C > A > B
B has the fewest first-place votes, and is eliminated. In the second round, A defeats C by a vote of 11-6, and wins.
But imagine that the 2 voters who voted C > A > B had reconsidered, decided that they really did like A better than C, and hence voted A > C > B. In that case, C would have been eliminated first, and then B would have defeated A by a vote of 9-8. So those two voters caused A to lose by listing him as their first choice!
And here's a really bizarre example:
40: B > C > A
25: C > A > B 35: A > B > C
C is eliminated first, then A defeats B by a vote of 60-40.
But suppose all the voters completely change their minds, so that their favorite becomes their least favorite, and vice versa.
40: A > C > B 25: B > A > C 35: C > B > A
B is eliminated, then A defeats C, 65-35.
The voters completely reversed their evaluations of the candidates, and yet got the same result!
IRV holds that A is the people's selection as the best candidate, and also that he is their selection as the worst candidate!
IRV is just a terrible idea.
I'm a little surprised we haven't yet heard from the Debian community extolling the virtues of Condorcet voting. I have my reservations about Condorcet, but it is clearly far superior to IRV. I do think that Condorcet is excellent for the purpose for which Debian uses it, and that there are other areas where we would also do well to use Condorcet voting. However, I don't think that it should be the general method by which we select candidates for major public office.
For my money, I'll stick with the two-party system. It's frustrating, but it actually works reasonably well. We live under the two-party system, so we are very familiar with its failings, but most of us do not see the problems in the alternatives. Naturally, the grass looks greener over there, but we'd be well advised to scout out the land much more thoroughly before racing over.
Anybody know what implications, if any, this has for the entropy of black holes and the Beckenstein Bound?
I thought that the entropy of black holes was determined by the fact that the only information needed to describe it completely was its mass, charge, and spin. The entropy computed from this assumption is proportional to the area of the event horizon, and, hence, we get the Beckenstein Bound.
At least, that's what I thought. But if a black hole, in fact, contains information about everything that has fallen into it, wouldn't that affect its entropy, and hence imply that the Beckenstein Bound is wrong, and therefore overturn some very significant ideas resulting from the Beckenstein Bound, such as the Holographic Principle?
If that were the case, this would be a much bigger story than it appears to be, so what am I misunderstanding?
If stem-cell research is so great and promising, then let private industry fund the research. After all, they're the ones who are going to make money off it.
Keep in mind the difference between science (knowledge of the laws of nature) and technology (practical application of that knowledge).
Patent law can give a private entity intellectual "ownership" of a technology. This provides a capitalist incentive to develop technology.
Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can not be owned by anyone. Once discovered, it belongs to the world. There is therefore very little capitalist incentive to fund "big science." If you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific research, and one of your competitors is the first to figure out how to use that knowledge to develop a practical therapy, then you have nothing to show for your scientific discoveries. The "nonownability" of scientific knowledge makes it the epitome of a public good. Funding scientific research is a very appropriate function of government.
In 1996, PBS aired a production of Moll Flanders. It featured numerous topless scenes. Not just fleeting glances, either, but reasonably lengthy scenes with the star's very visible breasts filling a good portion of the screen. There may have been a few scattered complaints, but nothing notable.
(c) MACHINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if--
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
Does this not describe the StorageTek case exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the IDF's Vietnam.
If Viet Nam had been launching missiles into Los Angeles, the U.S. would certainly have won that war, even if they'd had to go nuclear to do it.
It could just be the people I know, but it's seeming like a strong trend to me...
If the people you know have installed the current beta of Boot Camp, I think it's safe to say they're not the average consumer.
it wont matter if all the macs run xp will it?
Yes, because consumers who are replacing old machines don't have XP. They probably have Windows 98 or WIndows ME. They don't want to pay a premium for a Mac and shell out for a copy of XP. Besides, at least for now, using both OSes requires constant rebooting, which makes the idea pretty much a non-starter.
And, FWIW, the "Macs are more secure" marketing point goes right out the window the moment you run Windows on your Mac, which further reduces the incentive to pay the Mac premium.
Heat pumps are basically interchangeable commodities. The differences between Windows and Macs are rather greater. Give up all your software and everything you have learned about how to use your computer? It's a lot easier just to stick with what you're used to.
Maybe if Macs could run the consumer's old Windows stuff seamlessly (i.e., without a reboot and a copy of the latest version of Windows, which the consumer probably doesn't have if (s)he's replacing an old machine) it would be a more appealing option to the average replacing-a-broken-down-computer consumer.
We've hardly begun to scratch the surface of means for making DRM obsolete. People who invest in DRM Just Don't Get It(tm).
Some day -- Ten years? Less? -- we'll have displays and camcorders of such quality that we can just stick a camcorder in front of a monitor and it will be capable of making a near-perfect recording of anything the display can render for viewing by human eyes.
Then the industry will start putting watermarks in content and successfully lobby Congress for legislation requiring that all camcorders must contain technology to recognize the watermark and refuse to record anything containing it. Pre-legislation camcorders (as well as post-legislation camcorders tampered to bypass the protection) will be declared contraband and subject to confiscation.
A few decades after that, we'll have transhumanist (Or is it posthumanist? I always get them mixed up.) technology that we can put in our eyes, ears, and brains to record anything we see or hear, recall and replay it into our minds upon demand, and produce copies for other people. The potential applications of such technology will be ginormous, but one of those applications includes making copies of movies and music, so it will be forbidden for such technology to be possessed or used by anybody besides Big Brother. Either that or they'll stick a Clipper chip in it so they can monitor you for illegal activity like remembering a movie that you only paid to see once.
Give it up, DRM folks. Even with Congress's nose inserted firmly into your anal sphincter, your loss of this war is inevitable. You got all up in arms because technology advanced to the point where the average consumer can produce perfect or near-perfect reproductions of images and sounds. For the moment, the technology is still limited enough that, with help from the government, you can severely restrict the behavior of consumers (both legitimate and otherwise). That situation won't last long. We will have the ability to record anything we see or hear and to transmit copies around the world at 10 Gbps. DRM is already on life support, and some day -- within ten years, I'd guess -- it will be dead as a concept. You can either learn to live without it, or die with it.
Next time you see a "downloading a movie is theft" commercial, just turn to the people around you and remind them, "This is coming from the same people who accuse you of theft when you fast forward through the commercials."
How long before even the average man on the street (i.e., not the Slashdot crowd and our ilk) realize what a complete joke these people are?
Get a clue, ABC. You can campaign against movie downloaders, at least for now. It's like campaigning against immigrants or homosexuals. They're minorities, they're generally perceived as different, and you can find a sympathetic ear when you tell the average person that these minorities are to blame for Mr. Average's problems. However, when you attack Mr. Average in a way that he's going to feel, he's going to make sure you feel it, too.
In the European market things like design and elegance and simplicity are percieved to be important. Therefore a "good" remote control for the european market has very few buttons.
"Fewer buttons" ought not to be confused with greater simplicity.
Consider the example of a DVD player remote control that I own -- many DVD player remote controls work in the same way:
The fast-forward/rewind buttons are overloaded to control the chapter skip functions. Press and release quickly for chapter skip. Press and hold briefly for 2x ff/rw. Press and hold a little longer for 4x, etc. I don't know how many times I have fast-forwarded or rewound faster than I meant to, or worse, skipped to the next/previous chapter when I meant to fast-forward or rewind.
Another DVD player I own has a remote with separate buttons for chapter skip. Press the Next Chapter button to skip to the next chapter. Press the Fast Forward button to scan forward at 2x. Press again to scan faster.
The latter has more buttons, but is far easier to use, and results in fewer mistakes.
Overloading the same functions onto fewer buttons does not a simpler control make. It may make a control that looks a little less intimidating at first glance, but when used it quickly becomes more aggravating.
I thought this whole mess was cleared up back in 1977.
The Force is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together.
PhotoShopMyAss
Sounds like a Fark PhotoShop contest.
For the sake of humanity, someone will be there to continue medicine...
Yeah, that someone would almost certainly be the United States government. Would that be better?
Yes, it really is that simple, it only takes the tinist ammount of study to understand that creation and invnetion will continue at their pace if patents go to hell where they belong.
Oh, sure. Pharmaceutic companies would continue to invest eight-, nine-, and even ten-figure sums into developing a drug knowing that, once developed, any competitor could produce and sell exactly the same thing without having invested the GNP of Albania in developing it.
It only takes the tiniest amount of study to understand that, without patents, the pharmaceutic industry would cease to exist. A lot of other technology-based industries would also be crippled or destroyed.
Suppose I buy a Mac because I like a lot of its features, many of which depend on .Mac. I figure on paying the price of the original purchase, plus $99/yr. Then, in the future, Apple jacks up the price to $249/yr. In that case, I either end up paying more than I anticipated at the time of the purchase, or I lose some of the features that motivated the purchase in the first place. Either way, I would feel kind of screwed.
Should Apple provide a way for subscribers to lock in a price for, say, five or ten years?
Summary being that sad workers make less errors, presumably because they focus harder to block out the relentless hell of their lives.
The article doesn't give much detail on the experimental methods, but I certainly get the impression that it focuses on "I'm having a shiatty day" sadness rather than "I hate my life" sadness.
I imagine that the long-term- vs. short-term-sadness distinctinction is very significant, and probably workers who are trying to block out the "relentless hell" of a bad day are better workers than those who are trying to block out the "relentless hell of their lives."
I've worked at places that did this well, and I've worked at places that did it poorly.
At a place that did it poorly, the employer tried to "lighten up" the place with all kinds of stupid shtick and encouraging the employees to get into the act. Naturally, employees felt pressured to participate and to pretend to think it was fun, when it wasn't. (Cue Bill Lumbergh saying, "Friday is Hawaiian shirt day, so, you know, if you want to you can go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt, and jeans.") This didn't exactly improve morale.
If you want to reduce stress, give your employees the freedom to be themselves. This starts with you being yourself. Don't try to be funny if you have no sense of humor, but if you do have one, use it. Don't try to be silly if you're naturally stoic by demeanor. Don't try to be a cheerleader if that's not who you are. If you're anything but genuine, and you have smart employees, they'll sense it, and that sends the message that this is what's expected, and your employees will feel stressed by it, though they may be unable to articulate the source of the stress (even to themselves). So just let your natural personality shine through.
Unless, of course, you're naturally a complete jerk. In that case, the best thing to do is to shoot yourself in the head. Your employees will love you for it.
Nobody knows how much data the computer would be required to hold. The "analysis" that "proves" it impossible proceeds from the assumption that the perfect computer would have to store a representation of every possible position.
AFAIK, it has not been disproven that there is a yet-to-be-discovered invariant, computable by real-world computational power, that determines whether any given position is a win for white, win for black, or draw.
Let's see if we can raise about $80 million, half of which will go to funding the project for as long as it remains viable, and the other half of which will go to outsting the jackasses responsible for killing the federal funding.
Gee, we would have missed out on Anomalous acceleration if we had pulled the plug the first time they wanted to. (Have they adequately explained that yet?)
One proposed explanation is here. I have no idea what the consensus opinion is.
BTW, it was Pioneer, not Voyager, that revealed the phenomenon.
Does this collision actually mean anything?
OK, so somebody found two documents that have the same digest. This doesn't mean that they can construct a document to match any given digest. Even it did, the document so constructed would be gibberish.
Does this discovery point to any kind of meaningful exploit?
If I am your nearest neighbor, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are my nearest neighbor.
Image that Minor is the "extreme liberal" party, Major1 is the "moderate liberal" party, and Major2 is the "moderate conservative" party. The moderate liberals may be split on the question of second choice: some would prefer the extreme liberal to the moderate conservative, while others would prefer the moderate conservative to the extreme liberal.
Personally, I am a voter who would generally vote the Democrats first, and the Republicans second, ahead of the Greens. I know many people who feel the same way. It's not at all unrealistic.
It sounds good, if you don't think about it too much, but a little analysis demonstrates a lot of serious problems.
If you assume that the political landscape continues to looks pretty much like it does now -- two dominant parties, and a number of minor parties that don't get much attention -- then it works great. Minor-party enthusiasts can cast their largely symbolic votes for their minor-party candidates, who will get eliminated in the early rounds, and in the end it comes down to a two-way contest between the major parties.
But since the whole point of IRV is supposedly to change that political landscape, one certainly ought not to assume that the landscape would remain the same under IRV in attempting to justify IRV. So consider what happens when a minor party becomes strong enough to challenge the more-sympathetic major party:
Another illustrations of problems with IRV:
And here's a really bizarre example:
IRV is just a terrible idea.
I'm a little surprised we haven't yet heard from the Debian community extolling the virtues of Condorcet voting. I have my reservations about Condorcet, but it is clearly far superior to IRV. I do think that Condorcet is excellent for the purpose for which Debian uses it, and that there are other areas where we would also do well to use Condorcet voting. However, I don't think that it should be the general method by which we select candidates for major public office.
For my money, I'll stick with the two-party system. It's frustrating, but it actually works reasonably well. We live under the two-party system, so we are very familiar with its failings, but most of us do not see the problems in the alternatives. Naturally, the grass looks greener over there, but we'd be well advised to scout out the land much more thoroughly before racing over.
Anybody know what implications, if any, this has for the entropy of black holes and the Beckenstein Bound?
I thought that the entropy of black holes was determined by the fact that the only information needed to describe it completely was its mass, charge, and spin. The entropy computed from this assumption is proportional to the area of the event horizon, and, hence, we get the Beckenstein Bound.
At least, that's what I thought. But if a black hole, in fact, contains information about everything that has fallen into it, wouldn't that affect its entropy, and hence imply that the Beckenstein Bound is wrong, and therefore overturn some very significant ideas resulting from the Beckenstein Bound, such as the Holographic Principle?
If that were the case, this would be a much bigger story than it appears to be, so what am I misunderstanding?
What is to prevent capturing at that point and copying?
Legislation that will authorize the copyright holder to break into your home and execute you if they suspect you of thinking about making a copy.
Patent law can give a private entity intellectual "ownership" of a technology. This provides a capitalist incentive to develop technology.
Scientific knowledge, on the other hand, can not be owned by anyone. Once discovered, it belongs to the world. There is therefore very little capitalist incentive to fund "big science." If you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific research, and one of your competitors is the first to figure out how to use that knowledge to develop a practical therapy, then you have nothing to show for your scientific discoveries. The "nonownability" of scientific knowledge makes it the epitome of a public good. Funding scientific research is a very appropriate function of government.
In 1996, PBS aired a production of Moll Flanders. It featured numerous topless scenes. Not just fleeting glances, either, but reasonably lengthy scenes with the star's very visible breasts filling a good portion of the screen. There may have been a few scattered complaints, but nothing notable.
Now they can't even say a four-letter word?
Times have changed.
Does this not describe the StorageTek case exactly?