In fact, in my view, that is the *definition* of capitalism. Having the exclusive right to manufacture and sell *anything* is not capitalism, regardless of how well you believe it fits into American ideals. It's still not capitalism.
Actually, it started when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled the same rights that any individual has. That was around the time of Abraham Lincoln. So it started long before any of us were born.
I think the parent poster is definitely a jackass, but for you to say that "Americans are some of the laziest full-of-shit people I know" is pretty ignorant. Read today's Wall Street Journal. Ever since WWII hours per year spent working on average has dropped significantly in Europe while it has dropped only slightly in the US. Americans work about 1800 hours a year, while Europeans work about 1400 hours per year. They take lots of vacation and value their "leisure time" very highly. I think that's a great attitude, and they shouldn't have to work so much if they don't want to. But don't call Americans lazy, because that's such bullshit.
Drinking too much water can cause hyponatremia (too little sodium in your blood), which can make all your cells in your body swell up, including your brain cells, which would then cause brain damage. This is a fact.
You would think. If the US based copyright on promoting progress in the Arts and Sciences, why do they *retroactively* increase copyright terms, or even put things already in the public domain back into copyright? Why are copyright terms beyond any length of time needed to finance the creators of the works, thereby discounting the idea that copyright was to promote progress in science and arts? As far as I can tell, US copyright law is not based on any coherent or consistent theory at all.
What are you talking about?? They're not stopping people from renting or buying unedited versions, they're simply "marking out lines in a book" for people who already own the book and who want certain lines marked out.
Yeah, in America we still have the right to parody things. As much as I hate the idea of record companies calling the musicians they sign "works for hire," I hate equally the idea of having "moral rights" to your art. That is such bullshit.
When they say it costs more in energy than what is produced, they're not taking into account the energy that the suns rays provide when growing the corn. They're just talking about the energy that we already have, in usable form, that we use to create ethanol. Energy from the sun isn't taken into account because we didn't have that energy to begin with, but only got it by growing the corn.
No, this is not the prefered method. There are other DVD decrypters besides DeCSS, but they all just rip.VOB files and therefore makes it much easier to reencode movies, and swap it over the internet. In fact, I'm in middle of re-encoding a twilight zone DVD, which I ripped by using a program which decrypted the DVD first (I don't think it used DeCSS tho).
Even though it might be easy to do it the way you're describing, it would still take significantly longer to rip it, and the fact is no one does it that way.
I'm not trying to say anything one way or the other about what this should mean about the legality of this, I'm just telling you how people who actually rip DVDs do it.
Besides, that, as he keeps pointing out, he was able to figure out how to navigate BBSes, and how to use Boolean operators when he was 9 years old. Maybe 9 year olds (especially 8 year olds) just aren't that smart and, *maybe*, some of them need supervision. If I had a 9 year old, I likely wouldn't supervise him, but he clearly was not an ordinary 9 year old (something he seems to understand very well), so why is he comparing ordinary 9 year olds to himself?
Fine, but regardless of the words you use, data transport, or water (plumbing), is vastly different from traffic. You cannot treat it like a smooth flowing liquid.
You can't purchase it. They say to put in your email address and they'll contact you about purchasing it. That's always a sign that it's fake, or a joke, like bonsaikitten.com.
Ugh, I think those quotes were both taken out of context. The head of IBM, when he said that, was merely assessing the market, like normal business people do. He wasn't saying there'd only be 5 computers worldwide "forever". He simply was not predicting the future, just describing the present.
Same thing with the 640K ceiling. Bill Gates was talking about the PRESENT. He was saying that the limit won't be a problem for a while (it wasn't for 10 years) and that the fact that the current software can't handle more than that, doesn't matter, because by then we'll have updated it. He wasn't saying "anybody will only need 640K RAM forever, and noone, will ever, ever need more than that.
These quotes are so taken out of context and made to seem like it was some sort of prediction, when it wasn't.
Your use of the word "throughput" reveals that you've got the completely wrong model in your head. This isn't like electricity, or data, you can't reduce traffic that much. Traffic doesn't flow like a liquid, nor like sand. You're right, absolute speed is the only way to measure congestion. But if the absolute speed is 45, and you think that's too low, ask yourself if you'd prefer sitting in traffic at 6 miles an hour. As long as it's managed properly, then lowering speed won't lead to congestion. It will lead to lower speeds. But if the traffic is no longer properly manageable at high speeds (say a somewhat narrow road, with a lot of turns) then they have to slow it down to manage everything. That doesn't mean congestion though.
They're already doing some product placement. Sometimes they kind of squeeze it into the "plot". Like on saturday night live, they had this sketch about some DJ on the "shout-out show," and he pulls out a sobe energy drink, and give an advertisement in the form of a shoutout for sobe. But even though the show had in the story about a radio show advertising sobe, they were actually advertising sobe. Or Raymond the Preparation H guy giving out Preparation H as a sketch on Conan O Brien? They actually paid to get a sketch made out of it. Granted it's very funny, so I tolerate it (in other words, it's not like they compromised their comedy just to stick it in), also they're very upfront about it (Conan is like, after he gives a pitch (in a sarcastic commercial like voice), "you can see my soul leaving my body now" kind of acknowledging what he's doing.
Also on saturday night live they had one of those mock commercials with a bunch of "urban" kids talking about how preparation h cured they're hemmaroids ("Imma drop the 'H-bomb' on those 'roids). It's pretty funny....a bunch of "urban" kids in an advertisement for preparation H? It kind of doesn't match. So it's funny, and most people think they just did it because it's funny, but prepartion H paid for them to do that.
am all for a free Internet, but it just can't be "totally free" with the current system (an entirely different topic best left alone here).
Sorry, but I'd like to talk about that. I think it would be really great if the government financed and laid some dark fiber. Kind of like how they financed and built the interstate highway system. Things with a high fixed cost, and a low (zero) marginal cost *should* operate on this model, and I think internet/data transport is a perfect example.
Thing is, plenty of people are willing to devote time and energy to building a website, but 90% of them draw the line at paying their own money to do a service for *other* people. So if bandwidth costs were free/negligible (which they could be, if this model were adopted) then we'd see a lot more people starting websites and sharing information (a lot more crap too). Anyway, my point is, it's a shame that the price of bandwidth is so high, because it shouldn't be, and if the government financed dark fiber, the world would be a better place.:)
Re:Which is why you use an LCD...
on
IBM's Deep View
·
· Score: 1
Well the difference between film at 24Hz and video games at 24Hz is that film is motion blurred, so each frame captures everything from the start of the frame till the end of the frame (temporally). I remember reading about videocards to use motion blur to improve upon the monitors natural refresh rate. Even if the monitor is going at only 85Hz, using motion blur (combining multiple frames into one) should make games smoother.
It's not really necessarily true that it will contribute to congestion. Going slow doesn't necessarily lead to congestion. Traffic is a complicated subject, but if the computers had certain rules defined, depending on how the rules were formed, less congestion might result, but it depends on the rules. For example, if the rule is "immediately go try to slip into any gap or opening," which is the rule that most people use, then congestion will result. But if proper rules are formed, it could lead to much less congestion, regardless of speed. I'd imagine if there was some sort of radio communication between the cars, or even a centralized computer traffic controller, then we might have a highly efficient and congestion free roadway system. Lower speed doesn't really mean higher congestion.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, in my view, that is the *definition* of capitalism. Having the exclusive right to manufacture and sell *anything* is not capitalism, regardless of how well you believe it fits into American ideals. It's still not capitalism.
The gay kind?
If it were that easy, what would be so special about Open Source software??
Actually, it started when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are entitled the same rights that any individual has. That was around the time of Abraham Lincoln. So it started long before any of us were born.
I think the parent poster is definitely a jackass, but for you to say that "Americans are some of the laziest full-of-shit people I know" is pretty ignorant. Read today's Wall Street Journal. Ever since WWII hours per year spent working on average has dropped significantly in Europe while it has dropped only slightly in the US. Americans work about 1800 hours a year, while Europeans work about 1400 hours per year. They take lots of vacation and value their "leisure time" very highly. I think that's a great attitude, and they shouldn't have to work so much if they don't want to. But don't call Americans lazy, because that's such bullshit.
Drinking too much water can cause hyponatremia (too little sodium in your blood), which can make all your cells in your body swell up, including your brain cells, which would then cause brain damage. This is a fact.
You would think. If the US based copyright on promoting progress in the Arts and Sciences, why do they *retroactively* increase copyright terms, or even put things already in the public domain back into copyright? Why are copyright terms beyond any length of time needed to finance the creators of the works, thereby discounting the idea that copyright was to promote progress in science and arts? As far as I can tell, US copyright law is not based on any coherent or consistent theory at all.
Actually, you can sell your story for as long as you want. But after a limited copyright anyone else can sell it too.
Yeah, they had him move his head, but the spot where the laser hit the wall wasn't even where his head was to begin with.
Where'd you get this player?
What are you talking about?? They're not stopping people from renting or buying unedited versions, they're simply "marking out lines in a book" for people who already own the book and who want certain lines marked out.
Yeah, in America we still have the right to parody things. As much as I hate the idea of record companies calling the musicians they sign "works for hire," I hate equally the idea of having "moral rights" to your art. That is such bullshit.
When they say it costs more in energy than what is produced, they're not taking into account the energy that the suns rays provide when growing the corn. They're just talking about the energy that we already have, in usable form, that we use to create ethanol. Energy from the sun isn't taken into account because we didn't have that energy to begin with, but only got it by growing the corn.
No, this is not the prefered method. There are other DVD decrypters besides DeCSS, but they all just rip .VOB files and therefore makes it much easier to reencode movies, and swap it over the internet. In fact, I'm in middle of re-encoding a twilight zone DVD, which I ripped by using a program which decrypted the DVD first (I don't think it used DeCSS tho).
Even though it might be easy to do it the way you're describing, it would still take significantly longer to rip it, and the fact is no one does it that way.
I'm not trying to say anything one way or the other about what this should mean about the legality of this, I'm just telling you how people who actually rip DVDs do it.
Maybe we don't like to switch just for the sake of switching. Maybe we only want to switch when the thing we're switching to is actually *better*.
tag either.
Besides, that, as he keeps pointing out, he was able to figure out how to navigate BBSes, and how to use Boolean operators when he was 9 years old. Maybe 9 year olds (especially 8 year olds) just aren't that smart and, *maybe*, some of them need supervision. If I had a 9 year old, I likely wouldn't supervise him, but he clearly was not an ordinary 9 year old (something he seems to understand very well), so why is he comparing ordinary 9 year olds to himself?
Fine, but regardless of the words you use, data transport, or water (plumbing), is vastly different from traffic. You cannot treat it like a smooth flowing liquid.
You can't purchase it. They say to put in your email address and they'll contact you about purchasing it. That's always a sign that it's fake, or a joke, like bonsaikitten.com.
Ugh, I think those quotes were both taken out of context. The head of IBM, when he said that, was merely assessing the market, like normal business people do. He wasn't saying there'd only be 5 computers worldwide "forever". He simply was not predicting the future, just describing the present.
Same thing with the 640K ceiling. Bill Gates was talking about the PRESENT. He was saying that the limit won't be a problem for a while (it wasn't for 10 years) and that the fact that the current software can't handle more than that, doesn't matter, because by then we'll have updated it. He wasn't saying "anybody will only need 640K RAM forever, and noone, will ever, ever need more than that.
These quotes are so taken out of context and made to seem like it was some sort of prediction, when it wasn't.
Your use of the word "throughput" reveals that you've got the completely wrong model in your head. This isn't like electricity, or data, you can't reduce traffic that much. Traffic doesn't flow like a liquid, nor like sand. You're right, absolute speed is the only way to measure congestion. But if the absolute speed is 45, and you think that's too low, ask yourself if you'd prefer sitting in traffic at 6 miles an hour. As long as it's managed properly, then lowering speed won't lead to congestion. It will lead to lower speeds. But if the traffic is no longer properly manageable at high speeds (say a somewhat narrow road, with a lot of turns) then they have to slow it down to manage everything. That doesn't mean congestion though.
They're already doing some product placement. Sometimes they kind of squeeze it into the "plot". Like on saturday night live, they had this sketch about some DJ on the "shout-out show," and he pulls out a sobe energy drink, and give an advertisement in the form of a shoutout for sobe. But even though the show had in the story about a radio show advertising sobe, they were actually advertising sobe. Or Raymond the Preparation H guy giving out Preparation H as a sketch on Conan O Brien? They actually paid to get a sketch made out of it. Granted it's very funny, so I tolerate it (in other words, it's not like they compromised their comedy just to stick it in), also they're very upfront about it (Conan is like, after he gives a pitch (in a sarcastic commercial like voice), "you can see my soul leaving my body now" kind of acknowledging what he's doing.
Also on saturday night live they had one of those mock commercials with a bunch of "urban" kids talking about how preparation h cured they're hemmaroids ("Imma drop the 'H-bomb' on those 'roids). It's pretty funny....a bunch of "urban" kids in an advertisement for preparation H? It kind of doesn't match. So it's funny, and most people think they just did it because it's funny, but prepartion H paid for them to do that.
am all for a free Internet, but it just can't be "totally free" with the current system (an entirely different topic best left alone here).
:)
Sorry, but I'd like to talk about that. I think it would be really great if the government financed and laid some dark fiber. Kind of like how they financed and built the interstate highway system. Things with a high fixed cost, and a low (zero) marginal cost *should* operate on this model, and I think internet/data transport is a perfect example.
Thing is, plenty of people are willing to devote time and energy to building a website, but 90% of them draw the line at paying their own money to do a service for *other* people. So if bandwidth costs were free/negligible (which they could be, if this model were adopted) then we'd see a lot more people starting websites and sharing information (a lot more crap too). Anyway, my point is, it's a shame that the price of bandwidth is so high, because it shouldn't be, and if the government financed dark fiber, the world would be a better place.
Well the difference between film at 24Hz and video games at 24Hz is that film is motion blurred, so each frame captures everything from the start of the frame till the end of the frame (temporally). I remember reading about videocards to use motion blur to improve upon the monitors natural refresh rate. Even if the monitor is going at only 85Hz, using motion blur (combining multiple frames into one) should make games smoother.
It's not really necessarily true that it will contribute to congestion. Going slow doesn't necessarily lead to congestion. Traffic is a complicated subject, but if the computers had certain rules defined, depending on how the rules were formed, less congestion might result, but it depends on the rules. For example, if the rule is "immediately go try to slip into any gap or opening," which is the rule that most people use, then congestion will result. But if proper rules are formed, it could lead to much less congestion, regardless of speed. I'd imagine if there was some sort of radio communication between the cars, or even a centralized computer traffic controller, then we might have a highly efficient and congestion free roadway system. Lower speed doesn't really mean higher congestion.