Right.. because I'm sure New Hampshirians (Hampshirites? Hampshirees?) just love getting letters from outsiders who want to tell them how to run their government, and this doesn't have the possibility to backfire at all.
If you don't live in the town of Weare, these people aren't your representatives, and by trying to influence their decisions based on what you feel is right goes against everything a republic is supposed to be.
I fully hope the land is reclaimed, but I'm sure the people who live there are fully capable of deciding on their own. If they wanted our opinion, they'd solicit it.
Except there's no federal sales tax, in the US at least. But there's still other issues. I think you're highly overestimating the amount of taxes that would be "lost" due to lost sales, but even if it were significant, you're still not seeing the big picture. It's not the product that gets taxed, it's the income generated. That potential source of taxes is only lost if a) people are buying copies on the black market, or b) they save the money instead of spending it. Option A also implies that the people selling the movies would never spend their money in a manner that's taxable. Even if they save it, it's going to be taxed once it becomes income for someone else. Money is never lost by being spent, it simply moves around.
Darn right. Muslimism is a perfectly cromulent word. And even if it wasn't, we should all be able to tamevulant our own hijamadoos, because it doesn't affect communicatismness at all.
It's a safe bet that they'll cost less than any top of the line vid card. Even assuming you didn't need to buy anything but a new proc & vid card, and you bought one step down from top of the line, you're still talking about $600. If you're starting from scratch and build yourself, mobo, HD, DVD drive, RAM, NIC, and a PSU and a monitor and you're looking at $1200-1500. And really, the markup on hardware is insanely low. IIRC the ratio of manufacturing cost to selling price for computer hardware and is one of, if not the, lowest of any manufactured good. So you really are getting what you pay for in most cases, unlike, say, "high quality" name brand clothing compared to generic brands. (I'm talking Nike, not Armani). Although you can be sure your hardware will depreciate faster than a used contraceptive.
I suspect the opposite will happen, and they'll stop counting minutes altogether. Where I live, the cell cartel ($120 for 90 min/mo avg.) fell apart once the POTS phone company started offering unlimited wireless minutes for $50/mo (not including long distance, but I'm on an island so any long distance is international by definition). Once they crossed the line, the rest of the companies followed suit.
I can't prove, but highly suspect, that per-minute calling is nothing more than milking the customer. I suspect that the reason there are free nights/weekends isn't because it's cheaper for the phone companies, but because the (cell)phone companies are extorting the fact that businesses and many people must be available during business hours, and have no choice but to pay per-minute fees. If unlimited-minute companies can get a foothold, or if even one major provider starts offering unlimited minutes, game on.
Right. Remember folks, if people like it, it ain't art. Art isn't "cool," which is what makes it so damned "cool." Even though we can't define art, we know it when we see it.. just like obscenity. In fact, we shouldn't have to define art using words, because art is expressing yourself without using words. Except for literature and poetry. And when we understand exactly what you're saying with your art.. when it's not cryptic and open to interpretation, we don't want it. And by we, I mean the people who count -- other artists -- not the misguided public who can't tell a Picasso from a paint-by-numbers (which doesn't say anything about Picasso, of course) even though they're the people who buy your "art" because we don't have any money. Art is something you "feel," unless what you "feel," is "popular," in which case you're not "feeling," it. Don't sell out, maaaannnn.
By making it easy for folks to find entries near them, you're aiding a process with the potential to do a lot of harm, for better or worse.
Ah, potential harm for better or worse.
"Yeah, we tipped off that sex offenders boss and he got fired, but it turns out he wasn't really a sex offender, it was just a typo in the database. Fortunately we found out he was planning to implement Sender-ID filtering, so it actually worked out for the best."
Believe it or not, some people don't watch TV and don't feel intellectually superior about it, nor are we locked in our parents' basement. Personally, I don't make a conscious decision NOT to watch TV, I'd just rather do other things. I don't go to baseball games either. Does that make me anti-baseball? It's possible to decide not participate in a pastime without actively being against it. In fact, I think that's probably normal.
Obviously the guy was joking, the humor of which is that nobody would legitimately ask what TV is, but he was modded as flamebait and criticized as a zealot. Get a grip people. It's okay to laugh.
There's always time to refine the system and fix the leaks later. It may not be perfect, but it will encourage other mail servers to begin implementing the system. All mail will still arrive, albeit some may appear in the "Junk Mail" folder, but A) If you're not at least scanning the junk mail folder periodically, you're probably already missing some mail that's incorrectly marked as spam, and B) If you're using HotMail to receive e-mails you can't afford to miss, then you're insane and should seek help right now.
3) I will not ever, EVER, EVER buy something based on advertising.
Maybe not directly, but it's all about product awareness. If you notice your floor is dirty, and decide to go out and buy some floor cleaner, you're either going to buy a brand you've heard of, or the cheapest one you can find. So you might be at the store, and you'll say, "Well there's this, and this, and this, and oh, PineSol.. I think I'll try that."
Even if it's not a small purchase, but one you decide to research beforehand, you're more likely to research a product you've heard of vice zero chance of intentionally looking for a product you've never heard of. You'd never think to check out Slashdot x86 processors, because.. who knew they made them? Whereas if you've heard claims of 30% faster versus Intel's latest offering, you're going to make damn sure you find out if it's true.
It's easy to say, "Sure, I never see an ad and decide to run out and buy the product," because most people don't do that either.. but the truth is that advertising does affect our consciousness, however much we may dislike that idea. I even do like learning about new products from advertising.. just not repeatedly, day after day, hour after hour.
That said, I do block most ads at work because I never know when an inappropriate ad might appear. Most ad sites are blocked by our proxy server anyway, so the page just looks broken without the Adblock plugin. At home I block most flash ads, or ads that distract me from what I'm trying to read.
But in all seriousness, chickens rarely cross the road with the goal of reaching the other side clearly in mind. In fact, some scientists claim that chickens aren't capable of anything more than rudimentary stimulus/response pairs. The walking mechanism has even been found to be purely reflexive, without requiring instructions from the brain. Farmers around the world have duplicated this research by cutting the heads off of chickens and observing them "running around."
That's not a new law. It was discussed in this article. Some people made your point, and others said it didn't have serious review before being published. What it boils down to is that yes, it's not hard to bluff when the audience doesn't know what you're talking about to begin with. (Or am I bluffing?)
I'm pretty sure he explicitly stated he wasn't looking for the under-monitor variety. The photo in the article clearly shows a power strip with switches next to each socket. As not-very-useful as I might find it, the OP does have a point; I've never seen one like that before.
I don't think emulation is where Apple wants to go.. (and let's not get started on the semantics of whether or not WINE is an emulator). If it's possible to run Windows apps in OS X, then people will just write programs for Windows without bothering to make an OS X versions, just like what happened with OS/2. And since most apps will run better and more reliably in their native environment (Windows), people won't bother running them in OS X.
What Apple needs is better apps for OS X. They've already done that in the media production categories, or at least convinced enough people that they still retain a sizable portion of that market.. now they need to do it for the software most people use day-to-day. If the previous article about their trademark on "Numbers," is any indication, that's probably exactly what they plan to do.
Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.
Your argument might have been relevant, say, 3 years ago when iTunes et al didn't exist, but it's a moot point now. The Congressman was describing what happened in the past, when the RIAA was trying to preserve their outdated business model. Since then they've started selling online, and now it's the MPAA who's going nuts.
It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.
Valid point. It would be interesting to come up with a way to separate the production companies from the distribution companies (which already happens to some small extent). Production companies could then sell license their work for distribution through companies for whatever cost, and Internet Distribution Company A could license and distribute it, and Brick & Mortar Distribution Company B could do the same thing. This would promote real competition. The problems I see are:
a) Sometimes it's hard for production companies to convince anyone to distribute their work, no matter how good it is (Firefly springs to mind)
b) Some distributors would try to force exclusive deals (although that still might not be a bad thing.. think XM vs. Sirius). Perhaps exclusivity could be legally limited to a particular format though, so company A can have exclusive theater rights, company B can have exclusive DVD rights, but couldn't exclude company C from distributing it on PPV or company D from making it available via download. Although that might result in DVDs becoming unprofitable altogether, but I doubt it. Many people don't have the capability or inclination to download all of their media.
c) It could limit the ability of small startups to distribute their own works... but not necessarily. I'd be surprised if sites didn't pop up to distribute independent works with royalty-based compensation. It could actually increase ease of distribution, since people would have a single point to find a wide variety of independent works. A built-in popularity and rating system ala download.com would be pretty easy to implement.
At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
Yeah, that bothered me too.. But I think what he's trying to imply, without saying it straight out, is that yes, the download flag would be in place, but the tradeoff it wouldn't be illegal to manufacture devices which were capable of defeating it, effectively nullifying it. Even if he didn't think of it, his bill would seem to support that idea.
For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it.
Careful.. It's a violation of the Patriot Act to call it unpatriotic. Or was it a violation of the DMCA to tell how to violate the DMCA? Either way, you sound like a commie to me. I mean terrorist. Whatever the thing is we're all supposed to be afraid of these days; I can't keep track.
You joke, but it's to snidely attempt to point out the supposed fallacy of fair use, so I'm going to comment on that aspect..
In your hypothetical situation, you wouldn't really be the problem. AFAIK, courts have never found a 3rd party liable for a divorce. You're not under any obligation to uphold someone else's vows, let alone a mere committed relationship. Maybe your hypothetical friend will lose respect for you, and maybe he should, but the person he should be holding accountable is his GF, who should really be his ex GF, if he had any self respect.
More importantly, I've never heard of a single instance of copyrighted material making a conscious decision to get uploaded.
Another option is to us a knoppix disk and boot to Linux.
Except as the OP said, the DLL is created dynamically at boot time.
Although I'm not sure how that's possible. The source has to be somewhere -- likely in the registry -- it can't just magically appear. Seems like you could just do a rollback or boot with an archived registry to get rid of it.
This also solves "the last block" problem where everyone is waiting for the last block, since if you have 99% of the blocks you can generate what's left.
Not really, it just (possibly) changes the nature of the last block..PARs don't require any less data to be downloaded, it's just that you can substitute parity data for the original data, then do whatever transformation on that to get the original data back. If the file you're trying to get it 1GB, you're still going to need to download 1GB, whether it's 100% original data, 80/20, or anywhere in between.
The only thing this really helps is if clients prioritize the parity data and then all seeds disappear, although it's of very limited use there as well, since the data shared between the remaining peers still needs to total 100% of the file size.
Government regulations are far stricter, and the loss of crew is less acceptable (not that people ever ACCEPTED the loss of a crew but the flak NASA catches for it now is far worse than what they got 40 years ago).
It's the result of living in the cushy safety conscious era in which we exist. When you don't have to worry about starving, freezing, wild animal attacks, dying from infection of minor cuts, dying from childbirth, and the biggest challenge most people have is avoiding boredom, things like a few people dying while trying to expand the realm and knowledge of human civilization tend to get blown out of proportion. (Although I suspect the biggest concern was the cost in dollars rather than lives).
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
If I were aboard the space station and it suffered a catastrophic casualty on the scale that would mandate an evacuation, I'd be more than willing to play 50's-era phonebooth games with a capsule. Sure, it might only seat 3, but I'd much rather take my chances not being strapped down than staying aboard a dying space station.
Slashdot Mirror
Right.. because I'm sure New Hampshirians (Hampshirites? Hampshirees?) just love getting letters from outsiders who want to tell them how to run their government, and this doesn't have the possibility to backfire at all.
If you don't live in the town of Weare, these people aren't your representatives, and by trying to influence their decisions based on what you feel is right goes against everything a republic is supposed to be.
I fully hope the land is reclaimed, but I'm sure the people who live there are fully capable of deciding on their own. If they wanted our opinion, they'd solicit it.
either will work equally well.
What they meant to say is "neither will work particularly well."
Except there's no federal sales tax, in the US at least. But there's still other issues. I think you're highly overestimating the amount of taxes that would be "lost" due to lost sales, but even if it were significant, you're still not seeing the big picture. It's not the product that gets taxed, it's the income generated. That potential source of taxes is only lost if a) people are buying copies on the black market, or b) they save the money instead of spending it. Option A also implies that the people selling the movies would never spend their money in a manner that's taxable. Even if they save it, it's going to be taxed once it becomes income for someone else. Money is never lost by being spent, it simply moves around.
Darn right. Muslimism is a perfectly cromulent word. And even if it wasn't, we should all be able to tamevulant our own hijamadoos, because it doesn't affect communicatismness at all.
I feel sorry for the women who do regularly read Slashdot
HAHAHAHahahahahahaha... women regularly reading Slashdot.... that's a good one.
Wait, you were being serious?
HA! You almost had me there. Ahhh.. wiping the tears, wiping the tears.
It's a safe bet that they'll cost less than any top of the line vid card. Even assuming you didn't need to buy anything but a new proc & vid card, and you bought one step down from top of the line, you're still talking about $600. If you're starting from scratch and build yourself, mobo, HD, DVD drive, RAM, NIC, and a PSU and a monitor and you're looking at $1200-1500. And really, the markup on hardware is insanely low. IIRC the ratio of manufacturing cost to selling price for computer hardware and is one of, if not the, lowest of any manufactured good. So you really are getting what you pay for in most cases, unlike, say, "high quality" name brand clothing compared to generic brands. (I'm talking Nike, not Armani). Although you can be sure your hardware will depreciate faster than a used contraceptive.
I suspect the opposite will happen, and they'll stop counting minutes altogether. Where I live, the cell cartel ($120 for 90 min/mo avg.) fell apart once the POTS phone company started offering unlimited wireless minutes for $50/mo (not including long distance, but I'm on an island so any long distance is international by definition). Once they crossed the line, the rest of the companies followed suit.
I can't prove, but highly suspect, that per-minute calling is nothing more than milking the customer. I suspect that the reason there are free nights/weekends isn't because it's cheaper for the phone companies, but because the (cell)phone companies are extorting the fact that businesses and many people must be available during business hours, and have no choice but to pay per-minute fees. If unlimited-minute companies can get a foothold, or if even one major provider starts offering unlimited minutes, game on.
How about a tomato?
Right. Remember folks, if people like it, it ain't art. Art isn't "cool," which is what makes it so damned "cool." Even though we can't define art, we know it when we see it.. just like obscenity. In fact, we shouldn't have to define art using words, because art is expressing yourself without using words. Except for literature and poetry. And when we understand exactly what you're saying with your art.. when it's not cryptic and open to interpretation, we don't want it. And by we, I mean the people who count -- other artists -- not the misguided public who can't tell a Picasso from a paint-by-numbers (which doesn't say anything about Picasso, of course) even though they're the people who buy your "art" because we don't have any money. Art is something you "feel," unless what you "feel," is "popular," in which case you're not "feeling," it. Don't sell out, maaaannnn.
By making it easy for folks to find entries near them, you're aiding a process with the potential to do a lot of harm, for better or worse.
Ah, potential harm for better or worse.
"Yeah, we tipped off that sex offenders boss and he got fired, but it turns out he wasn't really a sex offender, it was just a typo in the database. Fortunately we found out he was planning to implement Sender-ID filtering, so it actually worked out for the best."
Believe it or not, some people don't watch TV and don't feel intellectually superior about it, nor are we locked in our parents' basement. Personally, I don't make a conscious decision NOT to watch TV, I'd just rather do other things. I don't go to baseball games either. Does that make me anti-baseball? It's possible to decide not participate in a pastime without actively being against it. In fact, I think that's probably normal.
Obviously the guy was joking, the humor of which is that nobody would legitimately ask what TV is, but he was modded as flamebait and criticized as a zealot. Get a grip people. It's okay to laugh.
OMG.. EBay them d00d. ul b $uper rich
There's always time to refine the system and fix the leaks later. It may not be perfect, but it will encourage other mail servers to begin implementing the system. All mail will still arrive, albeit some may appear in the "Junk Mail" folder, but A) If you're not at least scanning the junk mail folder periodically, you're probably already missing some mail that's incorrectly marked as spam, and B) If you're using HotMail to receive e-mails you can't afford to miss, then you're insane and should seek help right now.
3) I will not ever, EVER, EVER buy something based on advertising.
Maybe not directly, but it's all about product awareness. If you notice your floor is dirty, and decide to go out and buy some floor cleaner, you're either going to buy a brand you've heard of, or the cheapest one you can find. So you might be at the store, and you'll say, "Well there's this, and this, and this, and oh, PineSol.. I think I'll try that."
Even if it's not a small purchase, but one you decide to research beforehand, you're more likely to research a product you've heard of vice zero chance of intentionally looking for a product you've never heard of. You'd never think to check out Slashdot x86 processors, because.. who knew they made them? Whereas if you've heard claims of 30% faster versus Intel's latest offering, you're going to make damn sure you find out if it's true.
It's easy to say, "Sure, I never see an ad and decide to run out and buy the product," because most people don't do that either.. but the truth is that advertising does affect our consciousness, however much we may dislike that idea. I even do like learning about new products from advertising.. just not repeatedly, day after day, hour after hour.
That said, I do block most ads at work because I never know when an inappropriate ad might appear. Most ad sites are blocked by our proxy server anyway, so the page just looks broken without the Adblock plugin. At home I block most flash ads, or ads that distract me from what I'm trying to read.
But in all seriousness, chickens rarely cross the road with the goal of reaching the other side clearly in mind. In fact, some scientists claim that chickens aren't capable of anything more than rudimentary stimulus/response pairs. The walking mechanism has even been found to be purely reflexive, without requiring instructions from the brain. Farmers around the world have duplicated this research by cutting the heads off of chickens and observing them "running around."
That's not a new law. It was discussed in this article. Some people made your point, and others said it didn't have serious review before being published. What it boils down to is that yes, it's not hard to bluff when the audience doesn't know what you're talking about to begin with. (Or am I bluffing?)
I'm pretty sure he explicitly stated he wasn't looking for the under-monitor variety. The photo in the article clearly shows a power strip with switches next to each socket. As not-very-useful as I might find it, the OP does have a point; I've never seen one like that before.
Check out the big brain on Brett. You're a smart motherfucker. That's right, the metric system.
And they say Hollywood doesn't have accurate science..
I don't think emulation is where Apple wants to go.. (and let's not get started on the semantics of whether or not WINE is an emulator). If it's possible to run Windows apps in OS X, then people will just write programs for Windows without bothering to make an OS X versions, just like what happened with OS/2. And since most apps will run better and more reliably in their native environment (Windows), people won't bother running them in OS X.
What Apple needs is better apps for OS X. They've already done that in the media production categories, or at least convinced enough people that they still retain a sizable portion of that market.. now they need to do it for the software most people use day-to-day. If the previous article about their trademark on "Numbers," is any indication, that's probably exactly what they plan to do.
Well I can see a couple of problems. First the music industry currently sells the entire CD as if each song had value. Unfortunately most albums have a couple of good songs bundled with crap. Twenty songs for fifteen bucks sounds reasonable but fifteen bucks for two songs doesn't. Never mind that eighteen of the songs are unwanted.
Your argument might have been relevant, say, 3 years ago when iTunes et al didn't exist, but it's a moot point now. The Congressman was describing what happened in the past, when the RIAA was trying to preserve their outdated business model. Since then they've started selling online, and now it's the MPAA who's going nuts.
It is only when the economic environment can be controlled that corporations can get away with grossly inflated pricing. Many times this can occur if a corporation can obtain some kind of monopoly, mostly through the use of copyrights, patents or laws tailored for this purpose.
Valid point. It would be interesting to come up with a way to separate the production companies from the distribution companies (which already happens to some small extent). Production companies could then sell license their work for distribution through companies for whatever cost, and Internet Distribution Company A could license and distribute it, and Brick & Mortar Distribution Company B could do the same thing. This would promote real competition. The problems I see are:
a) Sometimes it's hard for production companies to convince anyone to distribute their work, no matter how good it is (Firefly springs to mind)
b) Some distributors would try to force exclusive deals (although that still might not be a bad thing.. think XM vs. Sirius). Perhaps exclusivity could be legally limited to a particular format though, so company A can have exclusive theater rights, company B can have exclusive DVD rights, but couldn't exclude company C from distributing it on PPV or company D from making it available via download. Although that might result in DVDs becoming unprofitable altogether, but I doubt it. Many people don't have the capability or inclination to download all of their media.
c) It could limit the ability of small startups to distribute their own works... but not necessarily. I'd be surprised if sites didn't pop up to distribute independent works with royalty-based compensation. It could actually increase ease of distribution, since people would have a single point to find a wide variety of independent works. A built-in popularity and rating system ala download.com would be pretty easy to implement.
At the end of the article Rep. Boucher seemed to be talking about cutting a deal with the MPAA. He suggests that he may support the broadcast flag if they support the Media Consumers' Rights Act.
Yeah, that bothered me too.. But I think what he's trying to imply, without saying it straight out, is that yes, the download flag would be in place, but the tradeoff it wouldn't be illegal to manufacture devices which were capable of defeating it, effectively nullifying it. Even if he didn't think of it, his bill would seem to support that idea.
For example the "Patriot Act" which is anything but patriotic if one would take the time to actually read it.
Careful.. It's a violation of the Patriot Act to call it unpatriotic. Or was it a violation of the DMCA to tell how to violate the DMCA? Either way, you sound like a commie to me. I mean terrorist. Whatever the thing is we're all supposed to be afraid of these days; I can't keep track.
You joke, but it's to snidely attempt to point out the supposed fallacy of fair use, so I'm going to comment on that aspect..
In your hypothetical situation, you wouldn't really be the problem. AFAIK, courts have never found a 3rd party liable for a divorce. You're not under any obligation to uphold someone else's vows, let alone a mere committed relationship. Maybe your hypothetical friend will lose respect for you, and maybe he should, but the person he should be holding accountable is his GF, who should really be his ex GF, if he had any self respect.
More importantly, I've never heard of a single instance of copyrighted material making a conscious decision to get uploaded.
You can interpret that any way you see fit.
Another option is to us a knoppix disk and boot to Linux.
Except as the OP said, the DLL is created dynamically at boot time.
Although I'm not sure how that's possible. The source has to be somewhere -- likely in the registry -- it can't just magically appear. Seems like you could just do a rollback or boot with an archived registry to get rid of it.
This also solves "the last block" problem where everyone is waiting for the last block, since if you have 99% of the blocks you can generate what's left.
.PARs don't require any less data to be downloaded, it's just that you can substitute parity data for the original data, then do whatever transformation on that to get the original data back. If the file you're trying to get it 1GB, you're still going to need to download 1GB, whether it's 100% original data, 80/20, or anywhere in between.
Not really, it just (possibly) changes the nature of the last block.
The only thing this really helps is if clients prioritize the parity data and then all seeds disappear, although it's of very limited use there as well, since the data shared between the remaining peers still needs to total 100% of the file size.
Government regulations are far stricter, and the loss of crew is less acceptable (not that people ever ACCEPTED the loss of a crew but the flak NASA catches for it now is far worse than what they got 40 years ago).
It's the result of living in the cushy safety conscious era in which we exist. When you don't have to worry about starving, freezing, wild animal attacks, dying from infection of minor cuts, dying from childbirth, and the biggest challenge most people have is avoiding boredom, things like a few people dying while trying to expand the realm and knowledge of human civilization tend to get blown out of proportion. (Although I suspect the biggest concern was the cost in dollars rather than lives).
If I were aboard the space station and it suffered a catastrophic casualty on the scale that would mandate an evacuation, I'd be more than willing to play 50's-era phonebooth games with a capsule. Sure, it might only seat 3, but I'd much rather take my chances not being strapped down than staying aboard a dying space station.