Re:Yeah, because the old way just wasn't effective
on
Live to be 1000 Years Old?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think I agree. If I could see it coming a hundred years in advance I would probably do something spectacular too.
Re:Yeah, because the old way just wasn't effective
on
Live to be 1000 Years Old?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Aside from that, try to imagine the social, scientific and political stagnation that would occur from having old people not dying. Try to picture the economic devestation among young people (you think following the boomers sucks...), the lock-in of power among a few Very Oldsters... If people do start living to 1000, I think our real duty would be to start hunting them.
I think the long term result would be the exact opposite. On the surface yes, what you suggest would happen, but consider the OTHER implications of 1000 year old politicians... No longer would pollution, poor city planning, etc be a problem for their grandchildren/successors. Each and every person would have to spend at least 900 years living with the consequences of their decisions. Also, consider how boring it would be to be a senator for a thousand years. I would wager that most "career" politicans would retire after about as long as they do now, simply out of boredom. 60 or 70 years of income gives a pretty sound basis for a 900 year retirement just as much so as for a 20 year retirement.
and when i said "then youll move +2 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +1 and the turn ends." i meant "then youll get halved to +1 then youll move and the turn ends.". i have no idea why i put the extra +2 in there.
you almost have it, except the 1/2 iterations happen all during one turn until you can move (or until your velocity is 0). so if youre 3 pixels from the wall and your velocity is +10 then youll get halved to +5 then halved to +2 then youll move and the turn ends. then youll move +2 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +1 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +0 and the turn ends.
of course gravity is still affecting you, but its getting halved too until you stop moving into the wall. yes, its unrealistic that your vertical velocity slows when you hit a vertical wall, but it makes the simulation so much simpler. not quite the instant stop you envisioned.
return the game, tell them it didnt work. of course, youll buy it again pretty quickly, but its an excellent opportunity to give the 'no refunds on opened software' policy a swift kick in the behind.
Given PayPal's tendency to lock/charge accounts at random, you should never have an account that you ARENT willing to lose. I have abandoned two, soon to be three as soon as I get a fourth set up.
long story short: scammers claimed to never get products, so paypal gave them their money back. actual legit customer and I decide to cancel a transaction, and paypal wont give either of us the money. final result: scammer +$100 in products, legit customer -$100, me -$100 in products, paypal +$100.
the restraint thingy was just metal cuffs bound to the frame via some weird sort of electromagnetic attraction (the 5th force! heh), said attraction failing to propagate across her force frield. note that mr incredible could still move while in the cuffs, he just couldnt move very far or for very long.
syndrome's little freeze beam used 'Zero Point Energy' to actually 100% immobilize people. it is left to assumption that, like gravity (she still stuck to the ground) and electromagnetic radiation (like, duh, LIGHT, since her force field didnt look pitch black on the inside), this particular force DID pass through violet's force field. another plausible explanation is that the energy for violet's trick has to come from somewhere, and the ZPE device prevents her from utilizing that energy, this is likely since we do not see her even attempt to escape by producing a field.
The Incredibles is the first superhero movie that I have seen where the super powers were 'just right'. Usually powers are given that are so great that the either the hero 'forgets' to use them at a critical moment (which annoys me to no end... "you know, if he remembered that he could see through walls he would have caught the bad guy an hour ago") or arbitrary reasons have to be invented to prevent them from being used ("oh, the pseudoultramicroneutroniatron field is stopping your super powers again? guess we have to do things the hard way"). In this movie each individual power was not enough to overcome every obstacle, and every power was used to its fullest to overcome each obstacle, singly or via teamwork. As I walked out of the movie I remarked to a friend that I did not notice a single time in the movie where a power was stupidly forgotten or otherwise kept out of the action.
there is no stolen property involved. yes, perhaps there is 'stolen intellectual property' changing hands, but what i am trying to get across here is that 'recieving stolen property' and 'handling stolen goods' laws for real property have no counterpart in intellectual property laws. the property analogy breaks down at this point.
yes, its still protected by copyright. and if you take a few minutes to go read youll find that copyright law explicitly states that as long as a copy was produced legally then it is perfectly legal to give/sell that copy to anyone you choose. so, like i said, there is no copyright law against them selling that copy, or against them buying it from whoever they bought it from.
the copy was already created, by Cisco (or whoever their authorized people are). you have to admit that multiple such copies must exist, otherwise development could never proceed.
like i said, distributing that copy is probably against the employees' contracts, so they are breaking them when they give the copy away. there might even be some law they are breaking by divulging company secrets. but once the copy is made there is no *COPYRIGHT* law against it changing hands in any way. yes, there could be other laws, but NOT COPYRIGHT.
PS: and not stolen property either. intellectual property is NOT "property" as defined in any stolen property laws i can get my hands on via nolo.com or law.cornell.edu
intellectual property is NOT property. go read the law. there are nice simple definitions of what each is. yes, there are a lot of laws dealing with real property that have counterparts for intellectual property. 'recieving stolen goods' is not one of them. intellectual property is not goods. its not property as defined in any law about "real" theft. this is one case where the RP/IP analogy breaks down. the laws for real property dont apply, and the law in question for intellectual property doesnt exist.
Pretend you work at SCO, and youre working on the source. Completely legit. You have a copy of the source on your PC. So do a dozen other people in your office. Those copies were all created legitimately. If SCC is selling one of those copies then they arent breaking any laws. Whoever sold it to them probably broke their contract, and perhaps some industrial espionage laws, but not copyright laws.
I hate to be the only one to bring this up, but who says they are breaking copyright law? Assume they only have one copy, and they are selling THAT one copy. If a Cisco employee legally produced a copy of the source code then there is no *COPYRIGHT* law against that copy changing hands as many times as the possessor desires, for profit or otherwise. Yes, someone somewhere probably broke a contract, which carries separate legal ramifications, but in this scenario absolutely no copyright laws have been broken, and likely the SCC has broken no laws whatsoever.
no, they couldnt. the analogy between IP and R(eal)Property is just that, an analogy. yes, many similar laws exist for both, but the laws for one do NOT apply to the other. there is no law against HAVING illegally copied software. unless you use the "running it is COPYing it into memory!" idiot's argument then RUNNING illegally copied software isnt illegal either. just copying it is. ill be posting higher in the tree another very interesting point.
One thing no one has considered is the matter of excerpts. It is pretty well settled that using very short clips of movies, excerpts from books, etc is legal as fair use. The glory of BT is that youre only downloading a few seconds of the movie, but from a thousand different people.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 506 Prev | Next
506. Criminal offenses Release date: 2004-04-30 (a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either-- (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > 2319 Prev | Next
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright Release date: 2004-08-06 (a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law. (b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17-- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case. (c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code-- (1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more; (2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and (3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
monster cables are the 'standard' at radio shack these days. big partnership, and a whole wall dedicated to them next to the home entertainment section. but, if youre talking about the radio shack brand cables... sure, they are the same as any other brand, and they cost more, but the extra you pay at radio shack is for the convenience of being able to walk in and go 'hey, i got one of these, and one of these, give me everything i need to hook them together' and actually get the right wires, adapters, etc all in one trip. try that at wal-mart.
well, youll have to be slightly less random. given the assumption that the camera is level, you can calculate the location of the camera on earth relatively accurately based on the orientation, location, etc of the analemma.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I agree. If I could see it coming a hundred years in advance I would probably do something spectacular too.
I think the long term result would be the exact opposite. On the surface yes, what you suggest would happen, but consider the OTHER implications of 1000 year old politicians... No longer would pollution, poor city planning, etc be a problem for their grandchildren/successors. Each and every person would have to spend at least 900 years living with the consequences of their decisions. Also, consider how boring it would be to be a senator for a thousand years. I would wager that most "career" politicans would retire after about as long as they do now, simply out of boredom. 60 or 70 years of income gives a pretty sound basis for a 900 year retirement just as much so as for a 20 year retirement.
and if they use it, they owe you royalties :)
vDeck (his host) just suspended him, for exceeding his bandwidth allotment I am sure.
google cache link should be easy to find, but I am lazy so here is a different one
and when i said "then youll move +2 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +1 and the turn ends." i meant "then youll get halved to +1 then youll move and the turn ends.". i have no idea why i put the extra +2 in there.
you almost have it, except the 1/2 iterations happen all during one turn until you can move (or until your velocity is 0). so if youre 3 pixels from the wall and your velocity is +10 then youll get halved to +5 then halved to +2 then youll move and the turn ends. then youll move +2 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +1 and the turn ends. then youll get halved to +0 and the turn ends.
of course gravity is still affecting you, but its getting halved too until you stop moving into the wall. yes, its unrealistic that your vertical velocity slows when you hit a vertical wall, but it makes the simulation so much simpler. not quite the instant stop you envisioned.
so, I submitted a soluton (Clarence Risher) but I do not see any others being submitted? lots of comments here, is anyone actually trying to solve it?
return the game, tell them it didnt work. of course, youll buy it again pretty quickly, but its an excellent opportunity to give the 'no refunds on opened software' policy a swift kick in the behind.
the nokia 8860 (or is it the 8260?) runs on symbian. as does that new split-keyboard phone/pda (NOT the ngage)
Given PayPal's tendency to lock/charge accounts at random, you should never have an account that you ARENT willing to lose. I have abandoned two, soon to be three as soon as I get a fourth set up.
long story short: scammers claimed to never get products, so paypal gave them their money back. actual legit customer and I decide to cancel a transaction, and paypal wont give either of us the money. final result: scammer +$100 in products, legit customer -$100, me -$100 in products, paypal +$100.
(movie-specific physics law usage warning)
the restraint thingy was just metal cuffs bound to the frame via some weird sort of electromagnetic attraction (the 5th force! heh), said attraction failing to propagate across her force frield. note that mr incredible could still move while in the cuffs, he just couldnt move very far or for very long.
syndrome's little freeze beam used 'Zero Point Energy' to actually 100% immobilize people. it is left to assumption that, like gravity (she still stuck to the ground) and electromagnetic radiation (like, duh, LIGHT, since her force field didnt look pitch black on the inside), this particular force DID pass through violet's force field. another plausible explanation is that the energy for violet's trick has to come from somewhere, and the ZPE device prevents her from utilizing that energy, this is likely since we do not see her even attempt to escape by producing a field.
The Incredibles is the first superhero movie that I have seen where the super powers were 'just right'. Usually powers are given that are so great that the either the hero 'forgets' to use them at a critical moment (which annoys me to no end... "you know, if he remembered that he could see through walls he would have caught the bad guy an hour ago") or arbitrary reasons have to be invented to prevent them from being used ("oh, the pseudoultramicroneutroniatron field is stopping your super powers again? guess we have to do things the hard way"). In this movie each individual power was not enough to overcome every obstacle, and every power was used to its fullest to overcome each obstacle, singly or via teamwork. As I walked out of the movie I remarked to a friend that I did not notice a single time in the movie where a power was stupidly forgotten or otherwise kept out of the action.
thank you mr AC, please note that I covered all those points in various levels of grandparent-posting from here.
perfect reply :)
there is no stolen property involved. yes, perhaps there is 'stolen intellectual property' changing hands, but what i am trying to get across here is that 'recieving stolen property' and 'handling stolen goods' laws for real property have no counterpart in intellectual property laws. the property analogy breaks down at this point.
yes, its still protected by copyright. and if you take a few minutes to go read youll find that copyright law explicitly states that as long as a copy was produced legally then it is perfectly legal to give/sell that copy to anyone you choose. so, like i said, there is no copyright law against them selling that copy, or against them buying it from whoever they bought it from.
the copy was already created, by Cisco (or whoever their authorized people are). you have to admit that multiple such copies must exist, otherwise development could never proceed.
like i said, distributing that copy is probably against the employees' contracts, so they are breaking them when they give the copy away. there might even be some law they are breaking by divulging company secrets. but once the copy is made there is no *COPYRIGHT* law against it changing hands in any way. yes, there could be other laws, but NOT COPYRIGHT.
PS: and not stolen property either. intellectual property is NOT "property" as defined in any stolen property laws i can get my hands on via nolo.com or law.cornell.edu
intellectual property is NOT property. go read the law. there are nice simple definitions of what each is. yes, there are a lot of laws dealing with real property that have counterparts for intellectual property. 'recieving stolen goods' is not one of them. intellectual property is not goods. its not property as defined in any law about "real" theft. this is one case where the RP/IP analogy breaks down. the laws for real property dont apply, and the law in question for intellectual property doesnt exist.
Pretend you work at SCO, and youre working on the source. Completely legit. You have a copy of the source on your PC. So do a dozen other people in your office. Those copies were all created legitimately. If SCC is selling one of those copies then they arent breaking any laws. Whoever sold it to them probably broke their contract, and perhaps some industrial espionage laws, but not copyright laws.
I hate to be the only one to bring this up, but who says they are breaking copyright law? Assume they only have one copy, and they are selling THAT one copy. If a Cisco employee legally produced a copy of the source code then there is no *COPYRIGHT* law against that copy changing hands as many times as the possessor desires, for profit or otherwise. Yes, someone somewhere probably broke a contract, which carries separate legal ramifications, but in this scenario absolutely no copyright laws have been broken, and likely the SCC has broken no laws whatsoever.
no, they couldnt. the analogy between IP and R(eal)Property is just that, an analogy. yes, many similar laws exist for both, but the laws for one do NOT apply to the other. there is no law against HAVING illegally copied software. unless you use the "running it is COPYing it into memory!" idiot's argument then RUNNING illegally copied software isnt illegal either. just copying it is. ill be posting higher in the tree another very interesting point.
One thing no one has considered is the matter of excerpts. It is pretty well settled that using very short clips of movies, excerpts from books, etc is legal as fair use. The glory of BT is that youre only downloading a few seconds of the movie, but from a thousand different people.
It is also a criminal issue, if you do it enough.
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > 506 Prev | Next
506. Criminal offenses
Release date: 2004-04-30
(a) Criminal Infringement.-- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113 > 2319 Prev | Next
2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright
Release date: 2004-08-06
(a) Whoever violates section 506 (a) (relating to criminal offenses) of title 17 shall be punished as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and such penalties shall be in addition to any other provisions of title 17 or any other law.
(b) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(1) of title 17--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.
(c) Any person who commits an offense under section 506 (a)(2) of title 17, United States Code--
(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more;
(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
monster cables are the 'standard' at radio shack these days. big partnership, and a whole wall dedicated to them next to the home entertainment section. but, if youre talking about the radio shack brand cables... sure, they are the same as any other brand, and they cost more, but the extra you pay at radio shack is for the convenience of being able to walk in and go 'hey, i got one of these, and one of these, give me everything i need to hook them together' and actually get the right wires, adapters, etc all in one trip. try that at wal-mart.
IAARSE
well, youll have to be slightly less random. given the assumption that the camera is level, you can calculate the location of the camera on earth relatively accurately based on the orientation, location, etc of the analemma.