Actually, if you go to the junkyard you probably won't find any F350s at all, because the vast majority of Ford trucks ever built are still on the road -- 98% as of the last JDPower stat I saw. Ford pickups are rarely junked unless they're totalled in a wreck.
Myself, I have a 1978 F-100 light halfton, 185,000 miles, still looks and runs good despite having really worked for a living (it's often had to haul way over its rated capacity). And at the time that was the cheapest-made Ford truck you could buy.
Most people on Slashdot have neither driven a truck/SUV as a primary vehicle, nor lived in farm country where they can see for themselves how much longer trucks last. In farm country, you'll see loads of 20 to 30 year old trucks and SUVs, most of them nowhere near going to the graveyard. (I drive a 29YO pickup myself, with no immediate plans to replace it.) As of ~1980, the world record for most miles was held by an SUV driven by a rural mail carrier in Montana, with 1.2 MILLION miles under its belt... having never had anything but routine maintenance, and still going strong.
Further, our loyal Slashdotters (most being singles themselves) forget that for most households with kids, the SUV directly replaced the *station wagon* as the family vehicle of choice; it isn't just some newly wasteful consumer extravagance. But an average SUV gets about the same gas mileage, and *3x* the lifespan of an average station wagon. Meaning that over the same driving span, the average family now consumes only one vehicle worth of manufacturing materials, byproducts, and energy, where formerly it needed three cars worth (given the lifespan of station wagons and most passenger vehicles).
The Prius batteries may last 200K miles, but how long does the rest of the car last?
There's a good reason you see a lot more old trucks and SUVs on the road than you do old cars -- trucks and SUVs hold up better even under harder use.
It's not unusual for trucks and SUVs that are over 20 years old to be perfectly functiona, despite being used for Real Work and having never had any care but routine maintenance. How many cars last that long without going to hell??
Tho I'm wondering if a lighter-duty engineless model, more of a walk-booster than seven-league boots, might be practical using essentially a compressed-gas chamber that is recompressed by your downward step, and your stride is enhanced by its desire for decompression.
Exactly. If the concept of driving sims is so negative, why does the Air Force spend so much time and effort on its flight and air-combat sims? By the logic of this study, the more time a pilot spends in a combat sim, the more often he should crash.
[Yeah, nothing replaces the real thing, but you can still train attention sphere and reflexive control very well with a good sim.]
Not only that, but did they consider that maybe gaining some GAMING EXPERIENCE with the first game, let the subjects feel more confident about PLAYING the second game? so naturally instead of creeping around like they didn't know what they were doing, they played with more confidence (ie. more aggressively).
Kinda similarly, I noticed that DOOM made me much more aware of what's happening peripheral to my own vehicle, and more sensitive to what moves other drivers are likely to make. So it's made me a better driver. I was pretty good from the start, but I can tell it's made a difference, and when DOOM came out I'd already been driving for over 20 years.
Far as I see, the study only shows what we all knew already, and what insurance rates reflect -- teenage boys take risks, just because they're teens and immortal. There isn't necessarily any "cause" beyond that.
I think what people are missing here is that if the brain and/or heart muscle die, there's no point in saving the rest of you. Heart and brain are both better off getting SOME circulation with SOME residual oxygen, than NO circulation, which by definition will bring no oxygen either. So the priorities are circulation first, input of fresh oxygen second.
I came along after your post, but I had the same thought, particularly wrt using a device like the automatic chest compressor gadget someone above mentioned (can't find the link again offhand).
You can breathe quite adequately just by expanding and contracting your ribcage, tho it's tiring compared to letting your diaphram do all the work.
Futile breathing: alternately crank each shoulder up and down -- this will pump air from one lung to the other, but no air will enter or leave the system. Makes a weird noise, too.:)
When the heart is fibrillating and defib is not available, is there any value in giving it a sharp blow, with intent to stop the abnormal rhythm?
I can attest that a good solid thump (or rather, several good thumps) sometimes works with newborn puppies who've been too long in the birth canal and have gone into fib or cardiac arrest, but that's not quite the same situation. (And they also typically need a few rescue breaths before they start breathing on their own.)
And ISTM that barring airway blockage, with this whole-chest compression, you'll also get SOME mechanical airflow simply from the lungs being compressed and released along with everything else.
Demo it yourself -- you CAN breathe using only chest motion, tho it's tiring.
Nothing wrong with backing up data; indeed, some preservation of data is required, lest the system go down for good.
Trouble is, backing up data that you KNOW is liable to be corrupted isn't exactly good archiving practice, and can contribute to data loss in the future.
And you'll pay a lot more dearly for your backup storage if the corrupt data requires 20 or 30 years of special management, in addition to the normal costs of operation.
Thanks -- [goes off, reads info] -- Interesting. And from how this drug works (effectively clobbering part of the body's immune reaction), it sounds like MS is really a form of autoimmune disorder, probably inherited recessively.
I wouldn't argue that slashdot lacks for sociopaths:/ That's one of the problems with the "everything fits in a pigeonhole" mentality. There's no room left for humanity.
My take on it: What gives you the right to KNOWINGLY inflict a high probability of unusual suffering and early death on your children? How is having a child in that situation NOT unfair to your kid?? It's like saying to your kid, "We knew in advance that your life would probably suck big-time, but we did it anyway." Producing a child under such circumstances isn't love, it's just selfishness.
Not only that, but if you know you're going to die of X, you can be on the lookout for ways to potentially stave off death-by-X. Maybe new research or treatments will come along that you'd have paid no attention to before you knew you were at 100% risk; now they'll get your attention, and perhaps even save your life.
Of course then you're back to the daily grind, but ISTM that in most cases, that's still better than the alternative.
The big problem with your concept is that joeblow.cheapISP.com is only good until cheapISP.com goes tits-up -- then Joe Blow not only has to find new hosting, he ALSO has to retrain his entire audience to go to joeblow.newISP.com
Second, not all noncommercial domains are "vanity domains". Many are very useful to their owners and site-visitors, as a means of sorting out content by type and/or topic.
The real cure wouldn't be to raise the price of the ordinary domain out of the average person's reach -- that's just elitist crap.
No, the real cure would be to prohibit registrars from holding/reselling any domains (including by their subsidiaries and partners) that they aren't actually using for their own business. That way registrars couldn't squat domains. As it presently works, the fox is guarding the henhouse.
I do agree with you about the public interest. And when copyright is used as originally intended, it serves both to increase the public good, AND to increase the good (ie. profits) to individuals; that is, to natural persons, who by definition are part of the public. Conversely ISTM that the only real winners under the altered copyright laws are the corporations.
There are only two points where I disagree with you:
I think removing the fear from piracy, ie. making natural-human, noncommercial copying legal, would *increase* the market for most works, by sheer increased exposure.
In my experience, just hearing something once or twice seldom produces the urge to own The Real Thing -- but multiple exposures can create a sort of addiction that demands to be satisfied with a better grade of fix (ie. The Real Thing). And clips don't do it -- in fact, they usually annoy the ear, rather than cause one to want to hear the whole song. -- Radio used to fulfill this job of multiple exposures to create addiction (and still does for the Top 40 market), but now P2P does the same job, for not only the Top 40 but also for all the little guys. It's literally free advertising for everyone. The only losers here are the people who *sell advertising* TO commercial radio... P2P gives them no ears and no market demographics.
In fact, in my observation P2P has already had a huge positive impact for the little guys, who otherwise would never get heard at all by the greater market. Between P2P and internet radio (functionally the same thing) these small local bands can now reach a global audience, and it becomes worth their while both to tour, and to press/sell commercial CDs. Thus garage bands' audience is no longer limited to local sock hops and gin joints, and the wider public receives an increased choice of music (thus the public good is served both ways).
Witness: There are over 6000 touring bands listed on pollstar.com -- most of them bands that couldn't have got a gig out of their local town 10 years ago. And there are thousands of minor bands' albums available at major retail outlets (albeit primarily online, but who'd call Amazon trivial?), that in previous decades were only seen as DJ promo copies or special orders; you couldn't just buy them off the shelf.
And point #2 -- as I've said elsewhere, I think P2P could be used as a paid distribution medium for commercial works: watermark and track each file, and make micropayments to people who host and distribute these files to paying customers. (Rapidshare and similar outfits already do something sortof like this -- people who host files there get "points" for every file that's downloaded from their account.) Yeah, some would escape into the wild and propagate outside the system, but how does that differ from today's situation?? And if the price is right, most people will take a convenient, known-good source over having to hunt all over hell for the same content.
And as to your whole agenda, I find your views very interesting, and mine aren't set in stone, so feel free to expound:)
A couple years ago, I speculated that the RIAA is doing financial assessments of their targets prior to filing suits -- because ISTM that the victims were disproportionately in an economic class that would be unable to fight such suits, and would find the numbers so scary that they'd quickly cough up their life savings rather than fight it. And in my experience, disabled people are *more* likely than average to just roll over and take it, and are *more* likely to be on a fixed income and without the resources to fight a lawsuit. So as you suggest, these disabled targets may not be all that random... even if the nonrandom factor is primarily the economic bracket being targeted, rather than disabled persons as such.
Hmm. If the RIAA sues the average defendant for $3800, and the average case COSTS the RIAA [pulls number out of ass] $20,000 -- how long can they get away with this circus before it becomes evident to the courts that it has absolutely nothing to do with any money they're losing from filesharing, since it's costing them more for each suit than they ever *planned* to collect??
Interesting point. So... is there any prospect of turning the tables on The RIAA Gang, so they find themselves swinging from the noose?? Would going after RIAA lawyers via their local Bar (or a class action) be feasible?
Copyright didn't originally mean the right to COPY; it conveyed the right to PUBLISH. This distinction has been lost in recent years, but were it to be regained, private noncommercial copying such as you describe should be allowed by default, because by definition it is not *publishing* (ie. making PUBLIC).
Back in 1975, the Library of Congress itself informed me that if I wished to register a copyright, I *must* publish, that is, make the work available to the public (in the original sense of the word "publish"). This point seems to have gone away as of the change that made all works copyrighted the moment they're created, without necessity of registration.
So... I find your concepts in complete agreement with the original intent of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you go to the junkyard you probably won't find any F350s at all, because the vast majority of Ford trucks ever built are still on the road -- 98% as of the last JDPower stat I saw. Ford pickups are rarely junked unless they're totalled in a wreck.
Myself, I have a 1978 F-100 light halfton, 185,000 miles, still looks and runs good despite having really worked for a living (it's often had to haul way over its rated capacity). And at the time that was the cheapest-made Ford truck you could buy.
Most people on Slashdot have neither driven a truck/SUV as a primary vehicle, nor lived in farm country where they can see for themselves how much longer trucks last. In farm country, you'll see loads of 20 to 30 year old trucks and SUVs, most of them nowhere near going to the graveyard. (I drive a 29YO pickup myself, with no immediate plans to replace it.) As of ~1980, the world record for most miles was held by an SUV driven by a rural mail carrier in Montana, with 1.2 MILLION miles under its belt... having never had anything but routine maintenance, and still going strong.
Further, our loyal Slashdotters (most being singles themselves) forget that for most households with kids, the SUV directly replaced the *station wagon* as the family vehicle of choice; it isn't just some newly wasteful consumer extravagance. But an average SUV gets about the same gas mileage, and *3x* the lifespan of an average station wagon. Meaning that over the same driving span, the average family now consumes only one vehicle worth of manufacturing materials, byproducts, and energy, where formerly it needed three cars worth (given the lifespan of station wagons and most passenger vehicles).
The Prius batteries may last 200K miles, but how long does the rest of the car last?
There's a good reason you see a lot more old trucks and SUVs on the road than you do old cars -- trucks and SUVs hold up better even under harder use.
It's not unusual for trucks and SUVs that are over 20 years old to be perfectly functiona, despite being used for Real Work and having never had any care but routine maintenance. How many cars last that long without going to hell??
I want 'em too :)
Tho I'm wondering if a lighter-duty engineless model, more of a walk-booster than seven-league boots, might be practical using essentially a compressed-gas chamber that is recompressed by your downward step, and your stride is enhanced by its desire for decompression.
Exactly. If the concept of driving sims is so negative, why does the Air Force spend so much time and effort on its flight and air-combat sims? By the logic of this study, the more time a pilot spends in a combat sim, the more often he should crash.
[Yeah, nothing replaces the real thing, but you can still train attention sphere and reflexive control very well with a good sim.]
Not only that, but did they consider that maybe gaining some GAMING EXPERIENCE with the first game, let the subjects feel more confident about PLAYING the second game? so naturally instead of creeping around like they didn't know what they were doing, they played with more confidence (ie. more aggressively).
Geesh. Talk about lame conclusions.
OR that only idiots are influenced by those types of movies, regardless of anyone's likes or dislikes.
Kinda similarly, I noticed that DOOM made me much more aware of what's happening peripheral to my own vehicle, and more sensitive to what moves other drivers are likely to make. So it's made me a better driver. I was pretty good from the start, but I can tell it's made a difference, and when DOOM came out I'd already been driving for over 20 years.
Far as I see, the study only shows what we all knew already, and what insurance rates reflect -- teenage boys take risks, just because they're teens and immortal. There isn't necessarily any "cause" beyond that.
I think what people are missing here is that if the brain and/or heart muscle die, there's no point in saving the rest of you. Heart and brain are both better off getting SOME circulation with SOME residual oxygen, than NO circulation, which by definition will bring no oxygen either. So the priorities are circulation first, input of fresh oxygen second.
I came along after your post, but I had the same thought, particularly wrt using a device like the automatic chest compressor gadget someone above mentioned (can't find the link again offhand).
:)
You can breathe quite adequately just by expanding and contracting your ribcage, tho it's tiring compared to letting your diaphram do all the work.
Futile breathing: alternately crank each shoulder up and down -- this will pump air from one lung to the other, but no air will enter or leave the system. Makes a weird noise, too.
When the heart is fibrillating and defib is not available, is there any value in giving it a sharp blow, with intent to stop the abnormal rhythm?
I can attest that a good solid thump (or rather, several good thumps) sometimes works with newborn puppies who've been too long in the birth canal and have gone into fib or cardiac arrest, but that's not quite the same situation. (And they also typically need a few rescue breaths before they start breathing on their own.)
Nifty gadget. About what do they cost?
And ISTM that barring airway blockage, with this whole-chest compression, you'll also get SOME mechanical airflow simply from the lungs being compressed and released along with everything else.
Demo it yourself -- you CAN breathe using only chest motion, tho it's tiring.
Nothing wrong with backing up data; indeed, some preservation of data is required, lest the system go down for good.
Trouble is, backing up data that you KNOW is liable to be corrupted isn't exactly good archiving practice, and can contribute to data loss in the future.
And you'll pay a lot more dearly for your backup storage if the corrupt data requires 20 or 30 years of special management, in addition to the normal costs of operation.
(Why is my computer eyeing me askance??)
Thanks -- [goes off, reads info] -- Interesting. And from how this drug works (effectively clobbering part of the body's immune reaction), it sounds like MS is really a form of autoimmune disorder, probably inherited recessively.
I wouldn't argue that slashdot lacks for sociopaths :/ That's one of the problems with the "everything fits in a pigeonhole" mentality. There's no room left for humanity.
My take on it: What gives you the right to KNOWINGLY inflict a high probability of unusual suffering and early death on your children? How is having a child in that situation NOT unfair to your kid?? It's like saying to your kid, "We knew in advance that your life would probably suck big-time, but we did it anyway." Producing a child under such circumstances isn't love, it's just selfishness.
What's happening with MS? My dad died of it, but I live in a cave and haven't heard about the latest advances.
(Tho I'm well past the age of onset and probably don't have it, so it's not really a worry here.)
Not only that, but if you know you're going to die of X, you can be on the lookout for ways to potentially stave off death-by-X. Maybe new research or treatments will come along that you'd have paid no attention to before you knew you were at 100% risk; now they'll get your attention, and perhaps even save your life.
Of course then you're back to the daily grind, but ISTM that in most cases, that's still better than the alternative.
The big problem with your concept is that joeblow.cheapISP.com is only good until cheapISP.com goes tits-up -- then Joe Blow not only has to find new hosting, he ALSO has to retrain his entire audience to go to joeblow.newISP.com
Second, not all noncommercial domains are "vanity domains". Many are very useful to their owners and site-visitors, as a means of sorting out content by type and/or topic.
The real cure wouldn't be to raise the price of the ordinary domain out of the average person's reach -- that's just elitist crap.
No, the real cure would be to prohibit registrars from holding/reselling any domains (including by their subsidiaries and partners) that they aren't actually using for their own business. That way registrars couldn't squat domains. As it presently works, the fox is guarding the henhouse.
I do agree with you about the public interest. And when copyright is used as originally intended, it serves both to increase the public good, AND to increase the good (ie. profits) to individuals; that is, to natural persons, who by definition are part of the public. Conversely ISTM that the only real winners under the altered copyright laws are the corporations.
:)
There are only two points where I disagree with you:
I think removing the fear from piracy, ie. making natural-human, noncommercial copying legal, would *increase* the market for most works, by sheer increased exposure.
In my experience, just hearing something once or twice seldom produces the urge to own The Real Thing -- but multiple exposures can create a sort of addiction that demands to be satisfied with a better grade of fix (ie. The Real Thing). And clips don't do it -- in fact, they usually annoy the ear, rather than cause one to want to hear the whole song. -- Radio used to fulfill this job of multiple exposures to create addiction (and still does for the Top 40 market), but now P2P does the same job, for not only the Top 40 but also for all the little guys. It's literally free advertising for everyone. The only losers here are the people who *sell advertising* TO commercial radio... P2P gives them no ears and no market demographics.
In fact, in my observation P2P has already had a huge positive impact for the little guys, who otherwise would never get heard at all by the greater market. Between P2P and internet radio (functionally the same thing) these small local bands can now reach a global audience, and it becomes worth their while both to tour, and to press/sell commercial CDs. Thus garage bands' audience is no longer limited to local sock hops and gin joints, and the wider public receives an increased choice of music (thus the public good is served both ways).
Witness: There are over 6000 touring bands listed on pollstar.com -- most of them bands that couldn't have got a gig out of their local town 10 years ago. And there are thousands of minor bands' albums available at major retail outlets (albeit primarily online, but who'd call Amazon trivial?), that in previous decades were only seen as DJ promo copies or special orders; you couldn't just buy them off the shelf.
And point #2 -- as I've said elsewhere, I think P2P could be used as a paid distribution medium for commercial works: watermark and track each file, and make micropayments to people who host and distribute these files to paying customers. (Rapidshare and similar outfits already do something sortof like this -- people who host files there get "points" for every file that's downloaded from their account.) Yeah, some would escape into the wild and propagate outside the system, but how does that differ from today's situation?? And if the price is right, most people will take a convenient, known-good source over having to hunt all over hell for the same content.
And as to your whole agenda, I find your views very interesting, and mine aren't set in stone, so feel free to expound
A couple years ago, I speculated that the RIAA is doing financial assessments of their targets prior to filing suits -- because ISTM that the victims were disproportionately in an economic class that would be unable to fight such suits, and would find the numbers so scary that they'd quickly cough up their life savings rather than fight it. And in my experience, disabled people are *more* likely than average to just roll over and take it, and are *more* likely to be on a fixed income and without the resources to fight a lawsuit. So as you suggest, these disabled targets may not be all that random... even if the nonrandom factor is primarily the economic bracket being targeted, rather than disabled persons as such.
[goes off, reads blogstuff]
Hmm. If the RIAA sues the average defendant for $3800, and the average case COSTS the RIAA [pulls number out of ass] $20,000 -- how long can they get away with this circus before it becomes evident to the courts that it has absolutely nothing to do with any money they're losing from filesharing, since it's costing them more for each suit than they ever *planned* to collect??
Interesting point. So... is there any prospect of turning the tables on The RIAA Gang, so they find themselves swinging from the noose?? Would going after RIAA lawyers via their local Bar (or a class action) be feasible?
Copyright didn't originally mean the right to COPY; it conveyed the right to PUBLISH. This distinction has been lost in recent years, but were it to be regained, private noncommercial copying such as you describe should be allowed by default, because by definition it is not *publishing* (ie. making PUBLIC).
Back in 1975, the Library of Congress itself informed me that if I wished to register a copyright, I *must* publish, that is, make the work available to the public (in the original sense of the word "publish"). This point seems to have gone away as of the change that made all works copyrighted the moment they're created, without necessity of registration.
So... I find your concepts in complete agreement with the original intent of copyright.
Well, that's because you're an ethical lawyer, not a sleezebag :)