It was mentioned in the report on the senator's website. I'm not necessarily saying we should definitely have G restrictions. Maybe they should just mandate these sophisticated systems you're talking about. But the fact is, not all rollercoaster have your sophisticated systems, and they didn't always have them.
Stop saying nobody has died from them. Isn't possible that these mechanisms were created in response to an unnecessary death? You are defending your point that G's should not be restricted by law, without being intellectually honest. Conceding that my point might be right is not conceding that G's should be restricted by law. But it seems that you believe it is.
Until now, all intellectual property was basically a tax. Until now, there was no possible way of getting anything for free, except going to the library. In other words, you still had to pay for the book, because you were buying a physical item that would cost money even if it were uncopyrighted material like the bible or shakespeare.
See, now, the marginal cost of any piece of intellectual property is essentially zero. A movie a book or anything can be sent to a friend without any incresed cost to anyone.
Basically what this means is that by charging for something that has a zero marginal cost, we are introducing a market inefficiency. Why should we charge for something that has zero marginal cost, if that means limiting how many people can have access to it, since it wouldn't cost anything extra to let more people see it. That's a market inefficiency. Why would you limit how many people can have or use a certain product if it doesn't cost anything extra for another person to use it or see it?
Even things that cost money, like roads or lighthouses, shouldn't cost any money to use if there is no marginal cost. These are things that are publicly funded, they are called public goods. Unless we are talking about a road that has very high demand, the use of a typical road doesn't take away anyone else's use of that road. The same thing with a park. Why limit people from using the road or park, if their use wouldn't take away from someone else using that road or park.
We still need a way to cover the initial expenses of course. But by charging for use of the product , you are creating an inefficiency. Why not have the product be funded publicly, and not limit how many people can use it?
Now, the obvious part I've ignored until now regarding intellectual property is: well who's going to pay the fixed cost? Who's going to pay what it costs initially to write a book or make a movie.
Well there are two parts to my plan. The first is to vastly increase the public funding for films and books, etc. The second part is to severly limit copyrights, depending on the type of media, to something around five years. Maybe ten for books.
Now, why am I suggesting such a drastic change from what we currently have? What has changed, and what was different in the past that made such a drastically different system from what I'm suggesting pretty effective?
Well, in the past, like I said above, you had to pay for a book or a movie, since just printing it costed money. So who would it hurt if we gave the author a monopoly right to his book or film. So what, it might cost a couple of dollars extra? That wouldn't really hurt anyone, and it just makes authors happier.
But now that additional copies of books and films can be made for free, do we really want to limit their distribution thereby limiting how many people can enjoy it, without getting any more money? Why should we stop people who wouldn't have bought the book anyway, from getting it for free?
Of course, it's impossible to determine exactly who would or wouldn't have paid for a book, and that's why we need an entirely new system.
The fact of the matter is, art and science is done by what is called passionate labor. No matter what people might have you believe, art and science will be made by people who have a desire and a vision to create these things, not by entrepreneurs simply trying to make a profit. My point is that funding, no matter where it comes from, is just as effective in creating art, and even more effective in creating science, when it is publicly funded, rather than sold on the market.
The artists and scientists will be paid a salary or whatever just like they are now. Scientists working at pharmaceutical companies do their work for salary, not a promise of profit. So the only thing we are giving incentive for is incentive for funding. We don't need to give profit incentive to make art or science, we just need to pay the artists and scientists what they have been getting paid all along.
Of course, I'm not trying to say that all intellectual endeavours should be publicly funded. Let's talk about films in movie theatres. I think five years is more than enough of a copyright to create incentive to make movies, movies just like they've been making until now. Of course, they might make slightly less profit, but we all know they make too much, since that is why actors have been able to extort so much money from them keeping their profit margins like they were all along. So the only thing would happen is that actors would probably make less money.
I understand all the objections that you might have, because I've been through all of them myself. I know that just two years ago, I would have been offended by the things I'm suggesting here. But things are different, and I've thought this through, and even in this particularly long post, I can't address everything here. If you have any such objections, respond below, and I'll try to answer them.
Realize: I'm not a communist, and I'm applying the same economic principles which underlies our capitalist society to this area of intellectual endeavours. But intellectual products are not like other products. With the technology we have now, we shouldn't create horrible market inefficiencies to prop up a system of incentive that was appropriate fifty or a hundred years ago, but is no longer appropriate.
Like I said, I'm not a communist, but when things have a zero marginal cost, they shouldn't cost anything to buy, or they should at least cost as close to nothing as possible. This principle fits in perfectly with the rest of the economic principles we hold up high in America.
Unfortunately, it is such a different and drastic system, that most people won't understand it, and will probably react as I, to be honest, would've reacted just a year or two ago. But please, try to be open minded, and I will try to answer any questions you have below.
The important thing is that you be receptive, and not just dismiss what I'm saying without any thought.
How bout the one where the 39 year old woman and her 8 year old daughter died when the car when they were in didn't have enough momentum to completely go over the rise and they ended up crashing into the car behind them and dying. That sounds like a death due to poor design, doesn't it to you?
But if we're not going to treat them like real people, and not hold them accountable, and admit that they are purely profit-driven, and are only doing they see this might improve their situation, then you shouldn't then be like "oh, we should give them the benefit of the doubt" or some crap like that. You give "the benefit of the doubt" to real people, real people who can be held accountable. But you seem to throw accountability out the window when you say stuff like they're profit driven, so "true" reformation is impossible. So, therefore, let's stop pretending that we're going to hurt their feelings or something, because, as you're contending, they're only profit-driven and if their move will dredge up some profit, they will go forward, otherwise they won't.
Let's stop pretending that patting them on the back or ranking on them is actually going to make a difference. What do you think? That they come here and when they see our applause, they'll feel good inside and continue to do nice things? Like you said, they're profit driven corporations and our benefit of the doubt is not going to make a whit of a difference. Get with it.
You've got to be kidding me. There is definitely going to be an Xbox version of Doom 3. What are you on? All this talk from all these people who apparently don't play console games. Listen Xbox fail, and what you're saying may be right, but it's not because you're informed about things. It's just like these reporters. They say things because it's fashionable to say them, and they hope it turns out that way. Xbox is a great console, and it's definitely not going to fail.
Re:How much more can parents take?
on
XBox Live Network
·
· Score: 1
I think you overestimate how many Xbox owners are little kids, and underestimate how many Xbox owners are self-reliant.
Excuse me, but you seem to be the one who is confused. Where did God come from then. By stating that he exists outside of time and space and all dimensions, you are only mystifying and smokescreening. Your explanation is a non-explanation. It simply sidesteps the question.
You can go back forever and ever and say well where did that come from! well where did that before that come from!? But the fact is, if I'm going to believe anything about the universe, I'd choose to believe that the universe emerged from the simplest of origins; from the most basic configuration possible, resting only on logic. Kind of like math. It is that way because it couldn't be any other way. Yes, just like your explanation, it isn't really an explanation, but the core is true. I believe the universe emerged from the simplest of origins.
If you're going to believe that something preexisted everything else, and was always there, without anything or anyone created it, what makes more sense: a simple random configuration of matter and energy, and simple rules as wolfram suggests, or a supernatural omnipotent, omniscient being who knows all and is all? Frankly, your 'explanation' only creates more complicated questions than it answers.
Either the class was wrong, you're wrong, or that was being said in a different context. While you're right you really can't tell the difference between some of those colors, you *can* tell the difference when you have a gradual change, without subtle gradations, in other words integral color values. When that happens, you see banding. And when you start mixing alpha values in too, you need even more bits to avoid banding.
That's what I've always said. Here was/is my hypothesis. If the most elementary particles of the Universe each have an effect on the course of the universe, then you would need at least as much matter as the entire universe in order to calculate the future. Unfortunately, even if you had an amount of matter equal to the universe (in some far off, closed system, since I'd like to avoid infinite loops) under the most efficient setup, you would still only get the results simultaneously as they happened (not before). So the only way to predict the future completely accurately, in advance is to have more mass than the entire universe, in a completely closed system (at least closed off from our universe).
Of course I have no proof for this, but it just seems intuitive to me: the most efficient computing system would have to use the smallest particles possible. And since the results of the computations from the smallest particles possible are not random (otherwise it wouldn't be computing anything) then that proves that each of those particles on that scale must be calculated for in order to predict the outcome of the universe. And if you're limited to the mass equal to one of universes, then the most computationally effective way to predict the outcome of the universe is to actually put it into play.
I think it's pretty cool that our universe is crunched in real time.
Most politicians today are some evil dudes. But according to the strict definition of the words liberal and conservative, the poster you're replying to was right.
Hopefully they'll use this to have convincing (even more convincing!) video of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and others saying funny thing. Now they have a still photo of him, and have like a hole cut out by his mouth with someone elses mouth there. It's funny already, but this would be really interesting.
Well, in fact my question was predicated on the assumption that English is *not* logical. His comment implied that people who spell lose with two o's are inherently stupid. I was merely pointing out that knowing how to spell lose is no indication of raw intelligence.
Did you know that those original figures included the fact that the Xbox division was paying the OS division of Microsoft almost 100 dollars for use of the Windows kernel? Don't believe everything you read.
Actually, even though the Xbox price drop was 'officially' announced after the PS2, the news first broke about the Xbox, and sony was just fast enough to make it official before Microsoft did.
Slashdot Mirror
It was mentioned in the report on the senator's website. I'm not necessarily saying we should definitely have G restrictions. Maybe they should just mandate these sophisticated systems you're talking about. But the fact is, not all rollercoaster have your sophisticated systems, and they didn't always have them.
Stop saying nobody has died from them. Isn't possible that these mechanisms were created in response to an unnecessary death? You are defending your point that G's should not be restricted by law, without being intellectually honest. Conceding that my point might be right is not conceding that G's should be restricted by law. But it seems that you believe it is.
Until now, all intellectual property was basically a tax. Until now, there was no possible way of getting anything for free, except going to the library. In other words, you still had to pay for the book, because you were buying a physical item that would cost money even if it were uncopyrighted material like the bible or shakespeare.
See, now, the marginal cost of any piece of intellectual property is essentially zero. A movie a book or anything can be sent to a friend without any incresed cost to anyone.
Basically what this means is that by charging for something that has a zero marginal cost, we are introducing a market inefficiency. Why should we charge for something that has zero marginal cost, if that means limiting how many people can have access to it, since it wouldn't cost anything extra to let more people see it. That's a market inefficiency. Why would you limit how many people can have or use a certain product if it doesn't cost anything extra for another person to use it or see it?
Even things that cost money, like roads or lighthouses, shouldn't cost any money to use if there is no marginal cost. These are things that are publicly funded, they are called public goods. Unless we are talking about a road that has very high demand, the use of a typical road doesn't take away anyone else's use of that road. The same thing with a park. Why limit people from using the road or park, if their use wouldn't take away from someone else using that road or park.
We still need a way to cover the initial expenses of course. But by charging for use of the product , you are creating an inefficiency. Why not have the product be funded publicly, and not limit how many people can use it?
Now, the obvious part I've ignored until now regarding intellectual property is: well who's going to pay the fixed cost? Who's going to pay what it costs initially to write a book or make a movie.
Well there are two parts to my plan. The first is to vastly increase the public funding for films and books, etc. The second part is to severly limit copyrights, depending on the type of media, to something around five years. Maybe ten for books.
Now, why am I suggesting such a drastic change from what we currently have? What has changed, and what was different in the past that made such a drastically different system from what I'm suggesting pretty effective?
Well, in the past, like I said above, you had to pay for a book or a movie, since just printing it costed money. So who would it hurt if we gave the author a monopoly right to his book or film. So what, it might cost a couple of dollars extra? That wouldn't really hurt anyone, and it just makes authors happier.
But now that additional copies of books and films can be made for free, do we really want to limit their distribution thereby limiting how many people can enjoy it, without getting any more money? Why should we stop people who wouldn't have bought the book anyway, from getting it for free?
Of course, it's impossible to determine exactly who would or wouldn't have paid for a book, and that's why we need an entirely new system.
The fact of the matter is, art and science is done by what is called passionate labor. No matter what people might have you believe, art and science will be made by people who have a desire and a vision to create these things, not by entrepreneurs simply trying to make a profit. My point is that funding, no matter where it comes from, is just as effective in creating art, and even more effective in creating science, when it is publicly funded, rather than sold on the market.
The artists and scientists will be paid a salary or whatever just like they are now. Scientists working at pharmaceutical companies do their work for salary, not a promise of profit. So the only thing we are giving incentive for is incentive for funding. We don't need to give profit incentive to make art or science, we just need to pay the artists and scientists what they have been getting paid all along.
Of course, I'm not trying to say that all intellectual endeavours should be publicly funded. Let's talk about films in movie theatres. I think five years is more than enough of a copyright to create incentive to make movies, movies just like they've been making until now. Of course, they might make slightly less profit, but we all know they make too much, since that is why actors have been able to extort so much money from them keeping their profit margins like they were all along. So the only thing would happen is that actors would probably make less money.
I understand all the objections that you might have, because I've been through all of them myself. I know that just two years ago, I would have been offended by the things I'm suggesting here. But things are different, and I've thought this through, and even in this particularly long post, I can't address everything here. If you have any such objections, respond below, and I'll try to answer them.
Realize: I'm not a communist, and I'm applying the same economic principles which underlies our capitalist society to this area of intellectual endeavours. But intellectual products are not like other products. With the technology we have now, we shouldn't create horrible market inefficiencies to prop up a system of incentive that was appropriate fifty or a hundred years ago, but is no longer appropriate.
Like I said, I'm not a communist, but when things have a zero marginal cost, they shouldn't cost anything to buy, or they should at least cost as close to nothing as possible. This principle fits in perfectly with the rest of the economic principles we hold up high in America.
Unfortunately, it is such a different and drastic system, that most people won't understand it, and will probably react as I, to be honest, would've reacted just a year or two ago. But please, try to be open minded, and I will try to answer any questions you have below.
The important thing is that you be receptive, and not just dismiss what I'm saying without any thought.
How bout the one where the 39 year old woman and her 8 year old daughter died when the car when they were in didn't have enough momentum to completely go over the rise and they ended up crashing into the car behind them and dying. That sounds like a death due to poor design, doesn't it to you?
Yeah, it's got to be a single phone line, like how else would they know who made which query when you click on a link?
What's more efficient than oil?
But if we're not going to treat them like real people, and not hold them accountable, and admit that they are purely profit-driven, and are only doing they see this might improve their situation, then you shouldn't then be like "oh, we should give them the benefit of the doubt" or some crap like that. You give "the benefit of the doubt" to real people, real people who can be held accountable. But you seem to throw accountability out the window when you say stuff like they're profit driven, so "true" reformation is impossible. So, therefore, let's stop pretending that we're going to hurt their feelings or something, because, as you're contending, they're only profit-driven and if their move will dredge up some profit, they will go forward, otherwise they won't.
Let's stop pretending that patting them on the back or ranking on them is actually going to make a difference. What do you think? That they come here and when they see our applause, they'll feel good inside and continue to do nice things? Like you said, they're profit driven corporations and our benefit of the doubt is not going to make a whit of a difference. Get with it.
You've got to be kidding me. There is definitely going to be an Xbox version of Doom 3. What are you on? All this talk from all these people who apparently don't play console games. Listen Xbox fail, and what you're saying may be right, but it's not because you're informed about things. It's just like these reporters. They say things because it's fashionable to say them, and they hope it turns out that way. Xbox is a great console, and it's definitely not going to fail.
I think you overestimate how many Xbox owners are little kids, and underestimate how many Xbox owners are self-reliant.
I don't get it. What's the solar federation? Can you explain it to me?
Excuse me, but you seem to be the one who is confused. Where did God come from then. By stating that he exists outside of time and space and all dimensions, you are only mystifying and smokescreening. Your explanation is a non-explanation. It simply sidesteps the question.
You can go back forever and ever and say well where did that come from! well where did that before that come from!? But the fact is, if I'm going to believe anything about the universe, I'd choose to believe that the universe emerged from the simplest of origins; from the most basic configuration possible, resting only on logic. Kind of like math. It is that way because it couldn't be any other way. Yes, just like your explanation, it isn't really an explanation, but the core is true. I believe the universe emerged from the simplest of origins.
If you're going to believe that something preexisted everything else, and was always there, without anything or anyone created it, what makes more sense: a simple random configuration of matter and energy, and simple rules as wolfram suggests, or a supernatural omnipotent, omniscient being who knows all and is all? Frankly, your 'explanation' only creates more complicated questions than it answers.
Either the class was wrong, you're wrong, or that was being said in a different context. While you're right you really can't tell the difference between some of those colors, you *can* tell the difference when you have a gradual change, without subtle gradations, in other words integral color values. When that happens, you see banding. And when you start mixing alpha values in too, you need even more bits to avoid banding.
That's what I've always said. Here was/is my hypothesis. If the most elementary particles of the Universe each have an effect on the course of the universe, then you would need at least as much matter as the entire universe in order to calculate the future. Unfortunately, even if you had an amount of matter equal to the universe (in some far off, closed system, since I'd like to avoid infinite loops) under the most efficient setup, you would still only get the results simultaneously as they happened (not before). So the only way to predict the future completely accurately, in advance is to have more mass than the entire universe, in a completely closed system (at least closed off from our universe).
Of course I have no proof for this, but it just seems intuitive to me: the most efficient computing system would have to use the smallest particles possible. And since the results of the computations from the smallest particles possible are not random (otherwise it wouldn't be computing anything) then that proves that each of those particles on that scale must be calculated for in order to predict the outcome of the universe. And if you're limited to the mass equal to one of universes, then the most computationally effective way to predict the outcome of the universe is to actually put it into play.
I think it's pretty cool that our universe is crunched in real time.
Or you can just treat two of the massive objects as one massive object, with a single center of mass.
Kill the president! His address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and he goes by the name of George. Come arrest me.
I think you strayed a little too far from the IGN boards. Go back home.
Actually, he didn't mean "lousy". "Lousey" means filled with lice.
Whoa, I didn't understand a word of that. Can you explain it to me, it sounds interesting.
Most politicians today are some evil dudes. But according to the strict definition of the words liberal and conservative, the poster you're replying to was right.
Hopefully they'll use this to have convincing (even more convincing!) video of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and others saying funny thing. Now they have a still photo of him, and have like a hole cut out by his mouth with someone elses mouth there. It's funny already, but this would be really interesting.
I saw this National Geographic special that showed how pet cats in Hawaii are ravaging the ecosystem.
Well, in fact my question was predicated on the assumption that English is *not* logical. His comment implied that people who spell lose with two o's are inherently stupid. I was merely pointing out that knowing how to spell lose is no indication of raw intelligence.
That's usually what happens after you freeze to death. You stop shivering.
Did you know that those original figures included the fact that the Xbox division was paying the OS division of Microsoft almost 100 dollars for use of the Windows kernel? Don't believe everything you read.
Actually, even though the Xbox price drop was 'officially' announced after the PS2, the news first broke about the Xbox, and sony was just fast enough to make it official before Microsoft did.
I suppose you think it's logical that lose is spelled with just one 'o'.