I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself...before I concluded that copyrights are crap
Don't get me wrong: I really am strongly opposed to copyright. My friends all know me as being obsessed with the topic. It's not like I'm your average joe who thinks we need copyright. I've also spent a long time thinking (and reading) about copyright (though perhaps not 7 years). But I'm not convinced that we need NO copyrights. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But before I posted a reply to you, I was of the opinion that 10 - 14 year copyright might be best. Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just not convinced either way. Go ahead tho, try to convince me;)
But is there a viable method of compensation for artists with no copyright?
Let me be clear. I don't think that artists make art or whatever it is they make, with the goal of compensation in mind. But the idea of copyright, imo, is to allow artists to make art, without forcing them to take a dayjob, so they can devote themselves full-time to art. So how will anyone make a profit without copyright at all?
I want to believe what you're saying, but I'm just not convinced that absolutely no copyright can work completely.
I find your post intriguing, and I'd say I agree with it for the most part, but would you say that copyright is COMPLETELY immoral? I mean, certainly there is something immoral about 150 year copyrights, but would you call a 10 year copyright immoral? I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that.
I don't mean to be a language nazi here, but it's not "tow the line" it's "toe the line". In other words, if someone were to toe the party line, that means basically, their toes are lined up, which means that THEY are in line, It has nothing to do with dragging or pulling. Just trying to nip this one in the bud before it takes on other meanings:)
No, they're gonna give up computers in favor of abacuses...
I mean seriously, why would they just get rid of computers? We still have wheels, don't we? It's a 7,000 year old invention. Somehow, I think we'll have computers forever and ever, in some form or another.
That's true, but if he's choosing the pronoun "whom" it should be like the parent described. I know, in either case, "whom" serves the same grammatical role, but it's a matter of matching style. If you're gonna use "whom," a pretty much archaic form, you usually go with the matching "dont end a sentence with a preposition" rule.
I don't really understand how non-integral base systems work. Can you explain it to me?
Re:For Crying out loud...
on
Build Your Own ECG
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes, it's true, and if you do enough searching from that link (you gotta go all the way down for your link) you'll find what happens if you're affected badly by colloidal silver: silver colored skin
The worst part about it was, like I said in the other comment, it wasn't even the concepts that were difficult to understand, it was simply the language. The architect spoke in the most circuitous way, even to the point of being non-sensical. I'm sure lawyers were able to follow it very well.
By the way, just as an aside, did anyone notice that matrix preshow-advertisement for green Powerade? They had a poorly done Agent Smith imitator (his voice sounded more like the moviefone guy, even though he was going for the cold calculating Agent Smith tone of voice), telling the audience that the human body can generate 12,000 BTUs of heat, and they have quotas to mee, and therefore we should all drink powerade.
I couldn't take the overbearing irony of such blatant product placement and advertising in a movie about freeing yourself from thought control. Maybe I was the only one, but I found it so deeply ironic.
Also, anyone else find going to the movies unbearable with all the different layers of advertising? It's so sickening, everywhere you look. From the pre-show "radio" with the fake DJs, to the TV ads that are being shown during what used to be preview time, to the stupid flashing trivia questions, brought to you by coke, or whoever, to the product placement WITHIN the movie, it really makes me physically sick.
No, I definitely understand that people use it because of it's purity and consistency, without changes to the formula. But
I'm pretty sure that the purity measure (99 & 44/100ths) is just made up. It's like if I said 99.99874% of my clients recommend me, it sounds like I actually measured and the precision I gave sounds like it's a real number and somehow makes it more credible than if I said "100% pure".
After all, who's to decide what pure is? Pure what? I'm sure there is more than one compound found in Ivory soap, some more than others, so are they impurities? And what makes the air an impurity, if it's part of the formula? Isn't it, in fact, 100% pure Ivory soap?
I think "99 & 44/100ths pure" is just a slogan, or a motto, and it doesn't actually represent any real measurement. By the way, 99 & 44/100ths pure IS trademarked, believe it or not.
99 - 44/100% PURE® This famous slogan originated in the 1800's when samples of Ivory were sent to college chemistry professors and independent laboratories for analysis. Comparison tests were made with castile soaps?the standard of excellence at that time. One chemist's analysis was in table form with the ingredients listed by percentage. Harley Procter totaled the ingredients which did not fall into the category of pure soap?they equaled 56/100%. He subtracted from 100, and wrote the slogan "99-44/100% Pure®: It Floats." This became a pledge of quality to Ivory consumers. This phrase is so identified with Ivory, it's registered as a trademark with the United States Trademark office. "It Floats" was added to Ivory's slogan in 1891.
Sorry, that hardly sounds like an accurate or meaningful measure of "purity". After all, if the chemist discovered.01% Silicon Dioxide (sand), it would've been counted towards "pure" soap. On the other hand, this is consistent with what you said that the 54/100th percent impurity is the air, since a chemist would discover air in a chemical analysis, and wouldn't list it as a component substance.
By the way, do you or does anyone find it hard to believe that it floats because of air? I mean, are there little bubbles of air in the soap? Cut open a bar of ivory, you won't see any air pockets. And if oxygen and nitrogen moleculres are actually dissolved in the soap, like a bit of oxygen is usually dissolved in water, that wouldn't increase the volume of the soap at all, and if I'm guessing right, that would only make it denser. So what's the deal?
Actually, I think the expression is meaningless. Just a slogan. And even if it did mean something over a hundred years ago, I'm sure the purity levels, or even the whole formula itself, has changed since then.
By the way, the reason Ivory floats is because it's whipped up with air before it hardens. The guy who invented it left the machine on too long by accident and it was extra frothy or something. Then people who bought it came back in asking for the floating soap. I read that somewhere, but I don't remember.
But what percentage of human genes are found in cucumbers? It's not really so valid to compare genomes that are very different in size. A Human vs. Chimp genome comparison is much more valid.
No offense, but you sound like most of the religious anti-evolution nuts out there, and like the parent poster. But why don't you actually read the link. I did, and I'm an atheist/agnostic.
The most pertinent question on the page, I believe, is how can purposeful useful biological mechanisms be created if the mechanisms are irreducible? How can a flagellum be made, if it requires a total of 40 proteins, and if any one of those proteins are changed the whole thing is useless?
I agree, Intelligent Design is mostly a ruse by creationists to get evolution out of the education system. Intelligent Design is also not a proper scientific theory, since it doesn't actually explain anything or specify any sort of detail.
But the questions are still compelling. And realize, "Intelligent Design" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. Maybe aliens designed and controlled life on Earth (when I say aliens, I'm basically talking about and including any natural (as opposed to supernatural) intelligent agent). Of course, there are so many problems with it, philosphically and scientifically, that's it's most likely not true. After all, even if aliens did design and direct life on Earth, where did the aliens come from? If we're only looking at natural explanations, we can't invoke God to explain where the aliens came from. And if we do say God created the aliens, then there's no reason to include aliens in the explanation at all; you're still relying on God so just say that God made life on Earth. And if you're going to say God created or directed life on Earth, relying on a supernatural (vs. natural) intelligent agent, then you're creating even bigger questions about "irreducible complexity". LIke, where did God come from? To me, that question is much bigger than any questions evolution might raise.
That would be the philosphical problem with the explanation. But from a practical point of view, how exactly would aliens "direct" the evolution of life? There is so much evidence for evolution, that evolution must have happened, and therefore ID is simply not required for the parts of evolution and biology that does NOT involve irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity in biology is an unavoidable question, but it still doesn't negate the fact that there is so much evidence in favor of evolution. So an ID approach might say that evolution happened, but an intelligent agent stepped in for the parts that required irreducible complexity.
But if evolution actually happened, how, in a practical sense, would an intelligent agent "step in" and evolve life?
So, while the theory of evolution does have a serious question and problem with irreducible complexity, it doesn't suddenly negate anything and everything about evolution.
And of course we don't know for certain that there really is ANYTHING in biology that ever has irreducible complexity. We may not be clever enough to devise the actual mechanism by which flagella or eyes have developed into what it is now, but that doesn't mean it is irreducible. We simply may not know how it can be reduced, but it may in fact be reducible.
And finally, ID isn't really a scientific theory at all. It doesn't actually explain anything or provide any means to know the truth. It's not specific. This doesn't make it right or wrong, but it's more like philosophy, not science. ID definitely raises many valid questions to established scientific theory, but it is not a scientific theory in itself at all.
So, my point is don't just brush this site off as quickly as you have. You end up being as close minded as most of the anti-evolutionists are. So while I might have just debunked ID to some degree, and I disagree with it just like you do, don't just brush off this particular site, because the questions are pretty valid.
I don't mind people who use the words "genii" or "boxen" to be colorful or interesting, but don't correct people who use perfectly acceptable usage like "geniuses".
01 is the name of the first robot city/nation, where the robots originally go to seek refuge from the awful humans (yes, i say awful with some irony). Anyway, now, Zion is the last remaining human city where the humans seek refuge from the robots. It has been speculated that Zion and Zero-One (01) are the same city. Even if they are not the same actual, their similar names symbolize their similar purposes.
Hence, the password puts the two together, Zion and 01.
Well, I don't necessarily think it was a PC "why do the robots hate us" message. After all, the robots did end up attacking and nearly destroying the human race. If you really want, you can interpret it as saying the humans were smart for not accepting the robots in the UN, if they were perhaps only delaying the inevitable. It can be interpreted as an argument for pre-emptive attack, and that the robots would've destroyed the humans whether the humans cooperated or not. You can interpret it either way, and I don't see it as PC crap.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to believe in copyrights so strongly, and took me 7 years worth of thinking about it, and questioning myself...before I concluded that copyrights are crap
;)
Don't get me wrong: I really am strongly opposed to copyright. My friends all know me as being obsessed with the topic. It's not like I'm your average joe who thinks we need copyright. I've also spent a long time thinking (and reading) about copyright (though perhaps not 7 years). But I'm not convinced that we need NO copyrights. I'm not even disagreeing with you. But before I posted a reply to you, I was of the opinion that 10 - 14 year copyright might be best. Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm just not convinced either way. Go ahead tho, try to convince me
But is there a viable method of compensation for artists with no copyright?
Let me be clear. I don't think that artists make art or whatever it is they make, with the goal of compensation in mind. But the idea of copyright, imo, is to allow artists to make art, without forcing them to take a dayjob, so they can devote themselves full-time to art. So how will anyone make a profit without copyright at all?
I want to believe what you're saying, but I'm just not convinced that absolutely no copyright can work completely.
I find your post intriguing, and I'd say I agree with it for the most part, but would you say that copyright is COMPLETELY immoral? I mean, certainly there is something immoral about 150 year copyrights, but would you call a 10 year copyright immoral? I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that.
I don't mean to be a language nazi here, but it's not "tow the line" it's "toe the line". In other words, if someone were to toe the party line, that means basically, their toes are lined up, which means that THEY are in line, It has nothing to do with dragging or pulling. Just trying to nip this one in the bud before it takes on other meanings :)
Actually, he didn't say chaos. I believe he said anarchy. Learn the difference, guy.
It's all the same to me guy.
No, they're gonna give up computers in favor of abacuses...
I mean seriously, why would they just get rid of computers? We still have wheels, don't we? It's a 7,000 year old invention. Somehow, I think we'll have computers forever and ever, in some form or another.
In soviet in russia -------> mother of the fucker, it fails you!!!
frosty piss yo
That's true, but if he's choosing the pronoun "whom" it should be like the parent described. I know, in either case, "whom" serves the same grammatical role, but it's a matter of matching style. If you're gonna use "whom," a pretty much archaic form, you usually go with the matching "dont end a sentence with a preposition" rule.
Well why don't you try pinging it guy? It's not a joke.
Actually it means your computer is going to delete your paper (if it's a really good paper).
... kind of ......... a bummer
And it will be
I don't really understand how non-integral base systems work. Can you explain it to me?
Yes, it's true, and if you do enough searching from that link (you gotta go all the way down for your link) you'll find what happens if you're affected badly by colloidal silver: silver colored skin
Hey look it's a Mark V! Good to see you Master Chief.
The worst part about it was, like I said in the other comment, it wasn't even the concepts that were difficult to understand, it was simply the language. The architect spoke in the most circuitous way, even to the point of being non-sensical. I'm sure lawyers were able to follow it very well.
By the way, just as an aside, did anyone notice that matrix preshow-advertisement for green Powerade? They had a poorly done Agent Smith imitator (his voice sounded more like the moviefone guy, even though he was going for the cold calculating Agent Smith tone of voice), telling the audience that the human body can generate 12,000 BTUs of heat, and they have quotas to mee, and therefore we should all drink powerade.
I couldn't take the overbearing irony of such blatant product placement and advertising in a movie about freeing yourself from thought control. Maybe I was the only one, but I found it so deeply ironic.
Also, anyone else find going to the movies unbearable with all the different layers of advertising? It's so sickening, everywhere you look. From the pre-show "radio" with the fake DJs, to the TV ads that are being shown during what used to be preview time, to the stupid flashing trivia questions, brought to you by coke, or whoever, to the product placement WITHIN the movie, it really makes me physically sick.
I'm pretty sure that the purity measure (99 & 44/100ths) is just made up. It's like if I said 99.99874% of my clients recommend me, it sounds like I actually measured and the precision I gave sounds like it's a real number and somehow makes it more credible than if I said "100% pure".
After all, who's to decide what pure is? Pure what? I'm sure there is more than one compound found in Ivory soap, some more than others, so are they impurities? And what makes the air an impurity, if it's part of the formula? Isn't it, in fact, 100% pure Ivory soap?
I think "99 & 44/100ths pure" is just a slogan, or a motto, and it doesn't actually represent any real measurement. By the way, 99 & 44/100ths pure IS trademarked, believe it or not.
From Ivory's webpage:
Sorry, that hardly sounds like an accurate or meaningful measure of "purity". After all, if the chemist discovered
By the way, do you or does anyone find it hard to believe that it floats because of air? I mean, are there little bubbles of air in the soap? Cut open a bar of ivory, you won't see any air pockets. And if oxygen and nitrogen moleculres are actually dissolved in the soap, like a bit of oxygen is usually dissolved in water, that wouldn't increase the volume of the soap at all, and if I'm guessing right, that would only make it denser. So what's the deal?
Now that part is secret :)
Actually, I think the expression is meaningless. Just a slogan. And even if it did mean something over a hundred years ago, I'm sure the purity levels, or even the whole formula itself, has changed since then.
By the way, the reason Ivory floats is because it's whipped up with air before it hardens. The guy who invented it left the machine on too long by accident and it was extra frothy or something. Then people who bought it came back in asking for the floating soap. I read that somewhere, but I don't remember.
But what percentage of human genes are found in cucumbers? It's not really so valid to compare genomes that are very different in size. A Human vs. Chimp genome comparison is much more valid.
No offense, but you sound like most of the religious anti-evolution nuts out there, and like the parent poster. But why don't you actually read the link. I did, and I'm an atheist/agnostic.
The most pertinent question on the page, I believe, is how can purposeful useful biological mechanisms be created if the mechanisms are irreducible? How can a flagellum be made, if it requires a total of 40 proteins, and if any one of those proteins are changed the whole thing is useless?
I agree, Intelligent Design is mostly a ruse by creationists to get evolution out of the education system. Intelligent Design is also not a proper scientific theory, since it doesn't actually explain anything or specify any sort of detail.
But the questions are still compelling. And realize, "Intelligent Design" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. Maybe aliens designed and controlled life on Earth (when I say aliens, I'm basically talking about and including any natural (as opposed to supernatural) intelligent agent). Of course, there are so many problems with it, philosphically and scientifically, that's it's most likely not true. After all, even if aliens did design and direct life on Earth, where did the aliens come from? If we're only looking at natural explanations, we can't invoke God to explain where the aliens came from. And if we do say God created the aliens, then there's no reason to include aliens in the explanation at all; you're still relying on God so just say that God made life on Earth. And if you're going to say God created or directed life on Earth, relying on a supernatural (vs. natural) intelligent agent, then you're creating even bigger questions about "irreducible complexity". LIke, where did God come from? To me, that question is much bigger than any questions evolution might raise.
That would be the philosphical problem with the explanation. But from a practical point of view, how exactly would aliens "direct" the evolution of life? There is so much evidence for evolution, that evolution must have happened, and therefore ID is simply not required for the parts of evolution and biology that does NOT involve irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity in biology is an unavoidable question, but it still doesn't negate the fact that there is so much evidence in favor of evolution. So an ID approach might say that evolution happened, but an intelligent agent stepped in for the parts that required irreducible complexity.
But if evolution actually happened, how, in a practical sense, would an intelligent agent "step in" and evolve life?
So, while the theory of evolution does have a serious question and problem with irreducible complexity, it doesn't suddenly negate anything and everything about evolution.
And of course we don't know for certain that there really is ANYTHING in biology that ever has irreducible complexity. We may not be clever enough to devise the actual mechanism by which flagella or eyes have developed into what it is now, but that doesn't mean it is irreducible. We simply may not know how it can be reduced, but it may in fact be reducible.
And finally, ID isn't really a scientific theory at all. It doesn't actually explain anything or provide any means to know the truth. It's not specific. This doesn't make it right or wrong, but it's more like philosophy, not science. ID definitely raises many valid questions to established scientific theory, but it is not a scientific theory in itself at all.
So, my point is don't just brush this site off as quickly as you have. You end up being as close minded as most of the anti-evolutionists are. So while I might have just debunked ID to some degree, and I disagree with it just like you do, don't just brush off this particular site, because the questions are pretty valid.
Actually, Ivory is 99.44% Or as they say 99 and 44/100ths pure. I'm not saying you're wrong, but 99.44% is more precise :)
Umm, no. We share a lot of DNA, but definitely not 98%
Actually, no.
I don't mind people who use the words "genii" or "boxen" to be colorful or interesting, but don't correct people who use perfectly acceptable usage like "geniuses".
01 is the name of the first robot city/nation, where the robots originally go to seek refuge from the awful humans (yes, i say awful with some irony). Anyway, now, Zion is the last remaining human city where the humans seek refuge from the robots. It has been speculated that Zion and Zero-One (01) are the same city. Even if they are not the same actual, their similar names symbolize their similar purposes.
Hence, the password puts the two together, Zion and 01.
Well, I don't necessarily think it was a PC "why do the robots hate us" message. After all, the robots did end up attacking and nearly destroying the human race. If you really want, you can interpret it as saying the humans were smart for not accepting the robots in the UN, if they were perhaps only delaying the inevitable. It can be interpreted as an argument for pre-emptive attack, and that the robots would've destroyed the humans whether the humans cooperated or not. You can interpret it either way, and I don't see it as PC crap.