yes: alchemy is the basis for modern chemistry
on
Verizon Blocking 4chan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
there would be no modern chemistry if it were not for the foundational inquiries of alchemists
likewise, there would be no modern psychology without the insights and work of sigmund freud
show some respect for your history. what you believe in today is superior to what they believed in the past. but you wouldn't believe in what you do today if they didn't believe in what they believed in the past. likewise, in a thousand years, some arrogant kid will snort at your brutal crude understanding and beliefs as well. apparently, with all the progress we've made in rationality and science, we still haven't cured arrogance and disrespect
some anonymous coward says he spoke with someone and the problem will be fixed?
well i just rang up obama and he said we'll have belgian style socialist waffles for every man, woman and child in this country in time for midterm elections
oh, that's absurd?
but you just modded an anonymous yahoo "informative" on the same fucking criteria
"First they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies; Then they came for fark, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies; Then they came for slashdot, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies; Then they came for the boobies-and I started building truckbombs, mailing anthrax, and hijacking airplanes."
4chan is the mindless id, verizon is the superego of executive function control. the superego attempts to suppress the id. but it will just comes out anyways, in some subconscious way, it always does. you can't kill something 4chan, it's immortal and undead. the mindless id always finds a way
I'm tired Sick and tired of love I've had my fill of love From below and above Tired, tired of being admired Tired of love uninspired Let's face it I'm tired
I've been with 1000's of men Again and again They promise the moon They always coming and going Going and coming And always too soon Right girls?
I'm tired, Tired of playing the game Ain't it a crying shame I'm so tired God dammit I'm exhausted...
box returns are the only determinant of any real world value
box returns are the only quantitative way we can evaluate how good or bad a movie was. every other determinant is subjective and therefore pointless and without merit. there's plenty of movies i think are far better than anything james cameron ever did, but made less than a million at the box office. and in my own personal hagiography, indeed, terminator is better than avatar, as you would agree. but the world doesn't give a shit about our fanboy lives. the only valid defensible measure is box returns. and based on that, avatar is better than terminator
1. get someone's birthday 2. subtract 3 months 3. tell them the holiday they were likely conceived on
kids born in early april started as fourth of july fireworks, kids born in late september were christmas celebrations, kids born in mid november are valentine's day gifts, kids born in mid october had parent's who REALLY admired martin luther king jr, kids born in mid december were st. patrick's day stupor mistakes, etc, etc
mildly amusing game at any age, but for some reason extremely hilarious in 7th grade
you don't care about what celebrities think about foreign policy and medical procedures, because those are serious subject matters and the opinion holders are fluff
but you do care* what linus torvalds thinks of his mobile phone, because both the celebrity and the subject matter are fluff
*when i say "you do care" i am not saying you care in the same way you care about war with iran or flu shots causing autism, you care in the same way you care about whether batman could beat superman, or exactly how much jar jar binks sucks: light hearted fluffy subject matter you are emotionally invested in out of sheer shallowness on your own part. which is perfectly ok, since this is just a slashdot thread, and no one is deadly serious all the time
or booth an actor doesn't matter, since neither endeavours are the most momentous things they ever did
star wars is the most momentous thing lucas ever did
hitler would be remembered as a painter, if he did nothing else of interest or moment after being a painter
meanwhile, i thought it was funny to see an ad for "pirhanha 3D" before watching avatar. why? because cameron started his career with the "piranha ii" movie. if cameron got hit by a car or decided to become a painter in 1982, "piranha ii" would be the movie he would be remembered by. not terminator. not titanic. not avatar. but since terminator, titanic, and now avatar are far more impressive than piranha ii, we forget all about piranha ii. and in 50 years, cameron will be known primarily as the guy who directed "avatar", and even terminator and titanic will fade in relevance to that, UNLESS cameron directs a move even more impressive than avatar, then he'll be remembered for whatever that movie is
get it? its the MOST IMPRESSIVE thing you do in life you are remembered for. that really is the truth
which nullifies your comment completely about hitler and booth, and reinforces my comment about eintstein and hilary, and lucas, and cameron
because even if he made 20 movies after star wars and every single one were the most puerile piece of uwe boll crap... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration
if einstein became a creationist after his exposition of relativity, does that detract from his earlier genius?
if edmund hilary fell down a flight of stairs, does that detreact from the fact he climbed mount everest?
i don't understand a way of evaluating people that somehow their accomplishments are diminished by later missteps
as if we only get better with every year, as if no one ever makes mistakes
"what have you done for me lately" is a pretty selfish crude shortsighted and hypocritical way to evaluate people
and what lobbyists are you talking about? that's funny
these are the facts (not propaganda):
if you have an obscure artist, and they are not reexposed to a mass audience, they make no money. fact
if an independent artist reexposes the obscure artist, money can be made via ancillary means off that obscure artist again. fact
however, current law means the independent artist cannot reexpose the obscure artist, because they can't afford the rights... to something no one wants... until they get reexposed. fact, fact, fact. something smell weird to you?
Collections of Hanshaw's recording were released on Audio CD in 1999 by Sensation Records. Another revival of interest occurred in 2008 with the indie animated feature Sita Sings the Blues, which retold the Indian epic poem the Ramayana from Sita's perspective by setting scenes from it to performances by Hanshaw.[4]
"I thought about it a good long time before I did it," Paley said in an email to CBC news. "The decision was motivated by both stick and carrot. Stick: the conventional distribution system isn't working any more; independent filmmakers make virtually no money via commercial distributors anyway; copyright today functions as censorship. Carrot: letting people share the film gives it the widest possible exposure and outsources the otherwise expensive and laborious work of distribution, archiving and promotion to the audience; freedom feels great."
Not that she wouldn't mind a donation. The Questioncopyright.org website has made it easy for fans to donate to help Paley with her bills. Because, behind Sita 's story of supernatural struggle lies a titanic clash over copyright.
Much of the soundtrack to Sita is provided by the music of Annette Hanshaw, the 1920s singer who popularized Am I Blue?. The copyright on her recordings was never renewed, but in the U.S. at least, elements of the work remain protected. The rights holders initially wanted a lot of cash before Paley could release her film. Eventually, they came to an agreement: if she paid $50,000 for the rights, she could release as many as 5,000 copies of Sita on DVD. Promotional copies would be exempt.
And that's why Sita is free. It's a promotion.
Some have suggested that Paley should have negotiated the rights before finishing the film. She feels now that the technology has finally arrived to allow a person to make a feature-length film of their own, the copyright laws often prevent independent filmmakers from having their films released.
"I would do nothing differently," said Paley "It costs money even to talk to the copyright holders; when we tried approaching them directly, they gave us the runaround. So, I had to pay a rights clearance house (and a lawyer before that). I didn't have that money back when I started, any more than I have it now. And licensors offer no special discounts for contacting them early. The only 'deals' they make are because someone knows someone who knows someone. That's how the middlemen stay in business. I had other things to do, like actually make the film, and I had no money. I'm glad I focused on making the film."
Capone: The songs selections here are inspired at times. I really liked the Gordon Lightfoot song "Beautiful."
V.G.: Thank you. The amount of time I spent choosing the music of the film would be unbelievable to you. The funny thing is, when it's not right, you spend all your time playing songs for people saying, "What do you think of this one? How about this one? How about this one
if its public, its public. nothing goes public and then **snap**, the genie goes back in the bottle. that's absurd
i'm sure john edwards or tiger woods have a few bits of media out there they wish were put in back in the bottle too, but who fucking cares about their embarassment. the idea that we should warp all understanding of freedom of expression and put expensive intrusive toll barriers all over a freely functioning internet just because of the embarassment of some asshole creator who regrets a previous work is pure fucking bullshit
they had to work out agreements with the heirs of sir arthur conan doyle before they did something with the recent sherlock holmes movie. why?! they had to work out agreements with the son of tolkien to proceed on the hobbit movie. why?! its just so much irrational, illegitimate barriers to the free exchange of ideas. no philosophically coherent argument makes sense to me where the child or grandchild or great-grandchild of an author blocks the use of an idea. it simply makes no rational sense to me whatsoever
of course, just as you say, the understanding you outline above IS supported by current law
but it all adds up to me as yet another absurdity that clearly demonstrates the idiocy of IP law, and why the internet should be amplified and sped up by activists in its already inevitable destruction of the stupidity that is IP law. the internet is the rising tide, current intellectual property law is a sand castle. i'm for some of us picking up buckets and speeding up the process: actively undermining the economics that supports the parasitical distributors and nepotisitically embedded heirs that impoverish our culture and dampen the free exchange of ideas. software that seeks out and purposefully puts "protected" works everywhere, so ther'es no way to bottle it up and control it, as if they can do so on the internet anyways
its simply wrong, it hampers the richness and growth of our culture. its a dampening of our shared richness, for the sake of the monetary richness of some nepotistic sense of priveledge and some legislator buying, legal goon employing asshole entrenched and dying distributors. fuck them all. copyright law serves nothing but legal parasites. and so this moronic status quo should be resisted and actively destroyed, for the good of our culture
listen up, anxiety ridden adrenaline filled large rodent:
the AUTHORS make money from prominence they don't currently have in current a system which buries their works in obscurity
understand?
and that IS progress, for consumers and authors. the only people who lose out are traditional distributors
as for google benefitting, yes, but this new understanding can easily be divorced from google. i am saying "do away with copyright", i'm not saying "give all copyright to google". if google is the first to move against traditional distributor model inanity, good for them
so what you do, to avoid all this pointless hullabaloo, is you pick the most obvious simple cut off, and go with it. and that cut off means there are eight planets
for the vast majority of author's we're not talking about jk rowling: they're obscure. and their works are, frankly, unknown, out of print, forgotten. such that putting the artificial boundary of negotiating with thousands of random yahoos and working out arcane legal arrangements with all of them is completely unwieldy, unworkable, and monetarily not worth the effort
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
it gets to a point where copyright law is simply gets in the way of technological, social, and cultural progress
there are numerous examples of people wanting to use obscure works, and finding it daunting and impossible to contact anyone to get the rights. the perverse result being that exposure, and therefore money to be made, is denied to these obscure works. copyright law is BLOCKING the long tail and therefore blocking profit making for authors via ancillary means
i'm so sick of copyright law. it needs to be actively destroyed, not simply ignored. luckily, the internet makes copyright's uselessness easily demonstrated. it's easy to circumvent copyright on the internet. meanwhile, enforcing copyright on the internet is a fool's errand. go at it teenagers, bring this ridiculous house of cards from a dead technological era crashing down. copyright is absurd, a farce, it's dead
Now, I don't think planetary scientists, for the most part, make their decisions based on arbitrary terminology. But to take a concrete example, given how precarious its funding seemed from time to time, I suspect New Horizons would not have gotten funded if Pluto had never been considered a planet. And that would have been a shame.
what?!
it would be a shame to go to pluto JUST BECAUSE it is mistakenly considered a "planet." the shame would be making visitations based on historical nostalgia, rather than sound science. there's hundreds if not thousands of scientifically intriguing objects out there that are mostly anonymous but show something very intriguing to science, like a dozen gas giant moons that are much more interesting than pluto according to all sorts of avenues of discovery, or something having a ridiculously huge albedo for its size, whose composition therefore is very interesting,
or something like this freak, the giant metal dog bone asteroid:
look, there are now 480,000 catalogued minor planets and nearly 69 MILLION observations (that could be double observations or new objects, not investigated fully yet). and its growing every year by hundreds of thousands
it would be cool. it would have no resistance. and it would be faster
so no heat sink problems, it would run at much lower power levels, and optical computing would make today's fastest electronic computers look like a texas instruments calculator from the 1970s
additionally, since we're running fibre everywhere today, there's no real interface/ translation between the photon on the line and the photon going into the processor, ideally. the promise is that the internet would become this woven intelligent network, soaring into the stratosphere in terms of speed, interconnectivity, intelligent routing, etc. it would really open up some amazing barely imaginable implications and avenues in terms of what the internet could possibly do. or maybe it would just mean 10^100 spams per picosecond;-P
assuming of course they tackle the bazillion fabrication issues facing the cheap, easy production of photonic computers. we're a long way away, but i hope to see a rudimentary setup before i kick the bucket
Slashdot Mirror
there would be no modern chemistry if it were not for the foundational inquiries of alchemists
likewise, there would be no modern psychology without the insights and work of sigmund freud
show some respect for your history. what you believe in today is superior to what they believed in the past. but you wouldn't believe in what you do today if they didn't believe in what they believed in the past. likewise, in a thousand years, some arrogant kid will snort at your brutal crude understanding and beliefs as well. apparently, with all the progress we've made in rationality and science, we still haven't cured arrogance and disrespect
some anonymous coward says he spoke with someone and the problem will be fixed?
well i just rang up obama and he said we'll have belgian style socialist waffles for every man, woman and child in this country in time for midterm elections
oh, that's absurd?
but you just modded an anonymous yahoo "informative" on the same fucking criteria
the correct quote is
"First they came for 4chan, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies;
Then they came for fark, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies;
Then they came for slashdot, and I did not speak out--because I was looking at boobies;
Then they came for the boobies-and I started building truckbombs, mailing anthrax, and hijacking airplanes."
4chan is the mindless id, verizon is the superego of executive function control. the superego attempts to suppress the id. but it will just comes out anyways, in some subconscious way, it always does. you can't kill something 4chan, it's immortal and undead. the mindless id always finds a way
between your comment and your sig
...
I'm tired
Sick and tired of love
I've had my fill of love
From below and above
Tired, tired of being admired
Tired of love uninspired
Let's face it
I'm tired
I've been with 1000's of men
Again and again
They promise the moon
They always coming and going
Going and coming
And always too soon
Right girls?
I'm tired, ...
Tired of playing the game
Ain't it a crying shame
I'm so tired
God dammit I'm exhausted
i suck, i'm a moron
(red faced)
box returns are the only determinant of any real world value
box returns are the only quantitative way we can evaluate how good or bad a movie was. every other determinant is subjective and therefore pointless and without merit. there's plenty of movies i think are far better than anything james cameron ever did, but made less than a million at the box office. and in my own personal hagiography, indeed, terminator is better than avatar, as you would agree. but the world doesn't give a shit about our fanboy lives. the only valid defensible measure is box returns. and based on that, avatar is better than terminator
or are you really that stupid?
where people argue about quantum thermodynamics but fail at basic math ;-P
or a 3 month gestation
either way, alien, you've just outed yourself
1. get someone's birthday
2. subtract 3 months
3. tell them the holiday they were likely conceived on
kids born in early april started as fourth of july fireworks, kids born in late september were christmas celebrations, kids born in mid november are valentine's day gifts, kids born in mid october had parent's who REALLY admired martin luther king jr, kids born in mid december were st. patrick's day stupor mistakes, etc, etc
mildly amusing game at any age, but for some reason extremely hilarious in 7th grade
you should have kept the ear and sent her that starry night painting you did, or the one with the twelve sunflowers
you don't care about what celebrities think about foreign policy and medical procedures, because those are serious subject matters and the opinion holders are fluff
but you do care* what linus torvalds thinks of his mobile phone, because both the celebrity and the subject matter are fluff
*when i say "you do care" i am not saying you care in the same way you care about war with iran or flu shots causing autism, you care in the same way you care about whether batman could beat superman, or exactly how much jar jar binks sucks: light hearted fluffy subject matter you are emotionally invested in out of sheer shallowness on your own part. which is perfectly ok, since this is just a slashdot thread, and no one is deadly serious all the time
or booth an actor doesn't matter, since neither endeavours are the most momentous things they ever did
star wars is the most momentous thing lucas ever did
hitler would be remembered as a painter, if he did nothing else of interest or moment after being a painter
meanwhile, i thought it was funny to see an ad for "pirhanha 3D" before watching avatar. why? because cameron started his career with the "piranha ii" movie. if cameron got hit by a car or decided to become a painter in 1982, "piranha ii" would be the movie he would be remembered by. not terminator. not titanic. not avatar. but since terminator, titanic, and now avatar are far more impressive than piranha ii, we forget all about piranha ii. and in 50 years, cameron will be known primarily as the guy who directed "avatar", and even terminator and titanic will fade in relevance to that, UNLESS cameron directs a move even more impressive than avatar, then he'll be remembered for whatever that movie is
get it? its the MOST IMPRESSIVE thing you do in life you are remembered for. that really is the truth
which nullifies your comment completely about hitler and booth, and reinforces my comment about eintstein and hilary, and lucas, and cameron
because even if he made 20 movies after star wars and every single one were the most puerile piece of uwe boll crap... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration
if einstein became a creationist after his exposition of relativity, does that detract from his earlier genius?
if edmund hilary fell down a flight of stairs, does that detreact from the fact he climbed mount everest?
i don't understand a way of evaluating people that somehow their accomplishments are diminished by later missteps
as if we only get better with every year, as if no one ever makes mistakes
"what have you done for me lately" is a pretty selfish crude shortsighted and hypocritical way to evaluate people
its called peristalsis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristalsis
aka, every time you swallow, you make a future fart
so what is this? interstellar peristalsis? gives new meaning to the term "worm hole"
and what lobbyists are you talking about? that's funny
these are the facts (not propaganda):
if you have an obscure artist, and they are not reexposed to a mass audience, they make no money. fact
if an independent artist reexposes the obscure artist, money can be made via ancillary means off that obscure artist again. fact
however, current law means the independent artist cannot reexpose the obscure artist, because they can't afford the rights... to something no one wants... until they get reexposed. fact, fact, fact. something smell weird to you?
http://www.answers.com/topic/annette-hanshaw
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/03/17/f-sita-sings-the-blues.html
here's some more "propaganda" for you:
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18202
if its public, its public. nothing goes public and then **snap**, the genie goes back in the bottle. that's absurd
i'm sure john edwards or tiger woods have a few bits of media out there they wish were put in back in the bottle too, but who fucking cares about their embarassment. the idea that we should warp all understanding of freedom of expression and put expensive intrusive toll barriers all over a freely functioning internet just because of the embarassment of some asshole creator who regrets a previous work is pure fucking bullshit
they had to work out agreements with the heirs of sir arthur conan doyle before they did something with the recent sherlock holmes movie. why?! they had to work out agreements with the son of tolkien to proceed on the hobbit movie. why?! its just so much irrational, illegitimate barriers to the free exchange of ideas. no philosophically coherent argument makes sense to me where the child or grandchild or great-grandchild of an author blocks the use of an idea. it simply makes no rational sense to me whatsoever
of course, just as you say, the understanding you outline above IS supported by current law
but it all adds up to me as yet another absurdity that clearly demonstrates the idiocy of IP law, and why the internet should be amplified and sped up by activists in its already inevitable destruction of the stupidity that is IP law. the internet is the rising tide, current intellectual property law is a sand castle. i'm for some of us picking up buckets and speeding up the process: actively undermining the economics that supports the parasitical distributors and nepotisitically embedded heirs that impoverish our culture and dampen the free exchange of ideas. software that seeks out and purposefully puts "protected" works everywhere, so ther'es no way to bottle it up and control it, as if they can do so on the internet anyways
its simply wrong, it hampers the richness and growth of our culture. its a dampening of our shared richness, for the sake of the monetary richness of some nepotistic sense of priveledge and some legislator buying, legal goon employing asshole entrenched and dying distributors. fuck them all. copyright law serves nothing but legal parasites. and so this moronic status quo should be resisted and actively destroyed, for the good of our culture
well named
listen up, anxiety ridden adrenaline filled large rodent:
the AUTHORS make money from prominence they don't currently have in current a system which buries their works in obscurity
understand?
and that IS progress, for consumers and authors. the only people who lose out are traditional distributors
as for google benefitting, yes, but this new understanding can easily be divorced from google. i am saying "do away with copyright", i'm not saying "give all copyright to google". if google is the first to move against traditional distributor model inanity, good for them
the cut off between mercury and all other planets is a severe drop off
likewise, if it doesn't orbit the sun, its a moon. completely different issue
and yes people have constant arguments over what constitutes a mountain, in fact it spilled over into farce because of national pride in one case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/19/wales
they even made a movie about it starring hugh grant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Englishman_Who_Went_Up_a_Hill_But_Came_Down_a_Mountain
so what you do, to avoid all this pointless hullabaloo, is you pick the most obvious simple cut off, and go with it. and that cut off means there are eight planets
endless mindless posturing to the contrary
for the vast majority of author's we're not talking about jk rowling: they're obscure. and their works are, frankly, unknown, out of print, forgotten. such that putting the artificial boundary of negotiating with thousands of random yahoos and working out arcane legal arrangements with all of them is completely unwieldy, unworkable, and monetarily not worth the effort
instead, dump all their work in one big database for free, and these authors, because of much greater ease in accessing their works, see an IMPROVEMENT in their accessibility, marketability, and prominence. imagine fucking that
it gets to a point where copyright law is simply gets in the way of technological, social, and cultural progress
there are numerous examples of people wanting to use obscure works, and finding it daunting and impossible to contact anyone to get the rights. the perverse result being that exposure, and therefore money to be made, is denied to these obscure works. copyright law is BLOCKING the long tail and therefore blocking profit making for authors via ancillary means
i'm so sick of copyright law. it needs to be actively destroyed, not simply ignored. luckily, the internet makes copyright's uselessness easily demonstrated. it's easy to circumvent copyright on the internet. meanwhile, enforcing copyright on the internet is a fool's errand. go at it teenagers, bring this ridiculous house of cards from a dead technological era crashing down. copyright is absurd, a farce, it's dead
the line between the 4 gas giants and the rest is a big one. that would work
the line between the 4 gas giants + the 4 (major) inner rocky planets and all the rest is another big obvious cut off point. that would work too
below that, it gets very murky very quickly in terms of valid, easily defined criteria
so your logical choices are:
1. 4 planets
or
2. 8 planets
or
3. 482,419 planets and counting
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html
you choose. i'm going with 8
what?!
it would be a shame to go to pluto JUST BECAUSE it is mistakenly considered a "planet." the shame would be making visitations based on historical nostalgia, rather than sound science. there's hundreds if not thousands of scientifically intriguing objects out there that are mostly anonymous but show something very intriguing to science, like a dozen gas giant moons that are much more interesting than pluto according to all sorts of avenues of discovery, or something having a ridiculously huge albedo for its size, whose composition therefore is very interesting,
or something like this freak, the giant metal dog bone asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/216_Kleopatra
or the rubble pile asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/253_Mathilde
or the potato asteroid with a moon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/243_Ida
the peanut asteroid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis
binary contact asteroids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_binary_(asteroid)
etc, etc.:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Iau_dozen.jpg
look, there are now 480,000 catalogued minor planets and nearly 69 MILLION observations (that could be double observations or new objects, not investigated fully yet). and its growing every year by hundreds of thousands
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html
i would say at least 1,000 of those objects are more worthy, for scientific reasons, of exploration than pluto
howabout the centaurs (really out there)? howabout the trojans (locked in orbit with jupiter)? howabout the apohele (smaller than earth's orbit)?
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPLists.html
in short, fuck pluto: it gets WAY more attention than it deserves
it would be cool. it would have no resistance. and it would be faster
so no heat sink problems, it would run at much lower power levels, and optical computing would make today's fastest electronic computers look like a texas instruments calculator from the 1970s
additionally, since we're running fibre everywhere today, there's no real interface/ translation between the photon on the line and the photon going into the processor, ideally. the promise is that the internet would become this woven intelligent network, soaring into the stratosphere in terms of speed, interconnectivity, intelligent routing, etc. it would really open up some amazing barely imaginable implications and avenues in terms of what the internet could possibly do. or maybe it would just mean 10^100 spams per picosecond ;-P
assuming of course they tackle the bazillion fabrication issues facing the cheap, easy production of photonic computers. we're a long way away, but i hope to see a rudimentary setup before i kick the bucket