Each chemical has it's own absorption spectrum. I'm sure Ritalin shows up differently, just as aspirin gives a different reading from MDMA or Methamphetamine. And, considering that Adderall is amphetamine, it would seem to pick that up pretty easily, although I would imagine that the extra carbon might give a slightly different reading.
If you have a valid prescription, there shouldn't be a problem. If your pills look like legitimate pills (i.e. no mitsubishi logos, diamonds, butterflies, or sketchy gel-capped things), and you have a "normal" amount (in other words, you don't have 2000 80mg oxycontins hidden in your rectum), then you're most likely okay.
As I understand it, the ancient concept of an "atom" was more philosophical, whereas Dalton's concept was made in order to explain experimental results. So he gets the credit for the theory.
Yeah they are anti-american in the same way that Noam Chomsky is anti-semitic. They disagree with the group that they are a part of so they are anti-$whatever.
Uh, well, that and the fact that Noam wrote an introduction to a book by an anti-semitic author by the name of Robert Faurisson who denied that the holocaust took place. Noam described Faurisson's holocaust-denial statements as "findings", and said: "I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust."
LOL.. Yea the Rosenburgs which the former soviet union admit were spies who helped them get the A-bomb. It's call treason, it's still punishable by death.
Read my post. It's almost for certain that Julius was passing stuff along, but he wasn't the one that gave the A-bomb to the Soviets. Who were our allies at the time.
(Cost of paying someone overseas + overhead costs of remote management + costs related to misunderstandings/errors + inconvenience) is still less than (Cost of paying you to sit in your underwear and "work" for 2 hours a day in between slashdot postings).
sorry folks, isn't there more important things to talk about?
Personally I found this discussion to be a lot more interesting than the usual non-nerd stuff that gets talked about on slashdot.
My take on the "interstellar travel" issue is that since the Earth is not an intentional means of interstellar transportation, it really shouldn't count as a "spaceship".
Shoplifters take something 'real' like bananas. (Aren't bananas what all shoplifters are after?) When someone takes a banana out of a bowl, then the bowl is one banana short.
Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss.
There are many other examples given of different methods to calculate loss/damages/liability. But interestingly, one method is the "forced licensing" method, where the amount of damages is calculated as what would be realized if all royalties and licenses were paid.
In other words, If you sold 100 copies of a CD that sold for $15, then the damages would be $1500. And if you allowed a thousand downloads of a thousand CDs then the damages would be $15,000,000.
They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving.
I feel obligated to point out that people starving is usually not a matter of money, but a matter of politics. Take Zimbabwe, for instance, where the US now sends half a million tons of food aid, when the country used to be a net food exporter. Why? Because President Mugabe seized the most productive farms in the country because they were owned by whites. And now those farms lie fallow and the people starve.
Political causes are at the root of famines in Ethiopia, China's "Great Leap Forward" (The worst famine in recorded history), and even the Great Irish Potato famine, where there was actually enough food even after the potato crop failed, but the other crops were taken to port under military guard and exported to other countries.
Throwing more money at the famine problem is not likely to solve it, despite what Sally Struthers et. al. would like to have you think.
A bunch of well intentioned individuals with no accountability for their actions construct a ship that will launch you into space, maybe.
As opposed to the great amount of accountability that was shown after the Challenger blew up in 1986? It's a little soon after Columbia to pass judgement, but you have to remember that in the current situation if you don't like the way NASA does things, what are you going to do, go to the Shuttle store down the street?
Copying currency really doesn't apply here; as its value is imaginary,
Currency's value may be transient and arbitrary, but it is by no means imaginary. Money is just another unit of measurement. And just as a paper bill has certain dimensions (according to arbitrary units), and weight (also according to arbitrary units), there is also an inherent value to it. How do you measure it? Easy, by asking "how much is it worth"?
They are stealing exclusive distribution rights, but they are not making any money off of it, which makes it a difficult thing to label. But it's not stealing.
How does failing to make money off of something turn stealing into not-stealing?
No matter how hard you try, you can't prove that after I copy your CD, you have something less than you had before.
Imagine I had a CD of Britney Spears's latest album. Now this CD has a certain value, which I could realize by selling, say to some Britney-lover on ebay or something.
Okay, now you surreptitiously copy my CD. 300,000,000 times. And give one to every single person in the United States. Now I still have my single copy of Britney Spears's latest album, but now when I go on ebay, there are now 299,999,999 copies being sold, and the only person that might have ever wanted to buy my CD already has it. So now my CD is worthless. I can not realize any value from it.
My personal assets are now worth $5 (or whatever the price is) less than they were before you went ahead on your copying spree. In other words, I now have something less than I did before. From copying.
I don't know what a fair price is. I'd gladly spend $50 to see a concert of a band that I like rather than $15 for their CD.
You're avoiding the question. One of your key arguments is that copying CDs is morally justified because of the price of the CDs. I am asking that if CDs were cheaper, would copying CDs no longer be morally justified?
I'm a 26-year-old Extra, which I'll admit is somewhat young for the hobby,
While I'm a 28 year old general class (I think that's what that name is, if they haven't changed it), I haven't actually been active in ham radio for years. Because I got my license when I was 13. Now that was young! Unfortunately I just ended up losing interest to other hobbies, but I still keep my license current with the FCC, and I still have my old 2 meter handheld around here, which I turn on every now and then just to hit a few local repeaters. And I still remember most of my morse code, I had to follow it up to 20wpm at the time, I believe they've removed most of the code requirements now, though, as you probably know. Okay, now i sound like an old man.:) This is N6RWE, signing off.
A $20 bill represents a promise from the US government that you can use it to pay taxes to them for their services. A $1 bill is the sme thing, but pays for 1/20th the amount of governmental services.
Of course I realize that there is a difference between a $20 bill and a $1 bill, my point was that the difference was not a result of the physical properties of the bills, but as a result of a non-physical value.
To combine my example with yours, imagine if I managed to devise a way to copy your $20 bill. After making copies of your bill, you would still have your bill, I would not have taken away anything physical from you, but your $20 is now worth less than it was. And, if I made enough copies, your $20 bill would become worthless. So I have essentially removed $20 from you without having to resort to physically take it.
Your comments about the profitability and costs of CD production are beside the point. If someone feels that CD costs are too high they are free to not buy the CD. But your opinion on the reasonableness of those prices is no excuse for stealing something that is not yours. And it is stealing, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph. Remember that my original point was that "stealing" does not necessarily have to involve a physical item.
Now I also understand why certain consumers have started copying music, it's certainly cheaper to spend a few cents on media and bandwidth than it is to pay $15-$20/CD. But that doesn't make it morally correct. Of course "Morality" is usually not enough reason to stop some people from doing something, which is why there needs to be enforcement and punishment. Hence my support for the RIAA in this endeavor, where they are seeking to punish the people who are doing something wrong, rather than punish EVERYONE (via the destruction of legitimate P2P networks).
As an aside, I also ask that if you feel that CD prices are wildly inflated, what would you consider to be a fair price? $10? $5? Now realizing that these prices are still far above what someone will pay to copy them, do you still think that copying would be justified?
Actually you did pay costs, in terms of bandwidth costs, hardware depreciation, and most importantly, your time. If you really "wouldn't pay a single cent", you wouldn't have even spent any time downloading it. Don't give yourself credit for being cheaper than you really are.
So what you're really saying is that you downloaded it because it is cheaper to do it that way than by buying it in the store. You should remember that cries of "It was too expensive!" is not a valid excuse for stealing something.
The intrinsic value of the property was decreased. This is the "something" that was taken. It is not a physical item, but it is real, as it can be measured (though money) and exchanged. And if something can be measured and exchanged, just as a physical item is, then in many cases it can be considered the same as a physical item, especially when speaking in terms of the very units of measurement used to evaluate it in the first place.
For example, suppose you had a stack of US$20 bills, and I took them and replaced them with a physically identical stack of US$1 bills. Now, in strictly physical terms, nothing has been lost, because I have replaced your pile of paper with an equivalent stack of paper. But I'm sure that you would agree that there has been a theft of US$19 per piece of paper, because the value of the paper has changed, even if the physical properties have not (beyond superficial changes in writing on the surface). This is why value matters, even if it is not physically assigned to an item such as a TV.
I was going to post something along these lines, but I wanted to check to see if someone else did, too bad you did it anonymously.
The thing that was very bad and dangerous about the RIAA's previous position was that they wanted to shut down a technology because they didn't agree with one particular use. That would punish everyone, even if a user was using it legimately. This is what happened with DAT tapes, which is why I had to pay through the nose for them, even though I was doing my own home-recording of my own music.
I'm very happy to see this change in tactics. I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I am a big fan of technology.
Piracy involves taking value away from someone else's property without compensating them for that loss. Taking something without compensating for it, whether or not the "thing" in question is a physical item, is stealing.
Second, piracy is not stealing. Stealing entails depriving a party of use. Piracy is just unauthorized copying. Not stealing.
Piracy decreases the inherent value of an item or property while not compensating the owner of item or property for that lost value. Unlawfully taking something of value without giving compensation is stealing. In other words, piracy is stealing.
Yes but lasers don't require megawatthours of electricity to generate. This sort of thing absolutely requires super high energies...
Therefore there will probably never be a commercial application to quark gluon plasma generation.
It often isn't the actual scientific experiment that is important, it's the knowledge that is gained through that experiment. For example, and this is slightly related to this experiment, in the 30s Stern and Gerlach sent a beam of hydrogen atoms through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and detected the nuclear magnetic moment. Later on Rabi sent a beam of LiCl molecules through oscillating magnetic fields to test if there was a magnetic resonance effect happening at a certain frequency.
Now neither of these experiments are used in applications today, but what they did do is establish the foundations of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, which today is used every day in MRI machines around the world. And while none of which use high energy beams in their operation, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the use of "non-applicable" experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I'm going to have to find somewhere else to hide my stash.
:)
Don't worry, you can always hollow out a baby and stash your drugs there.
If you have a valid prescription, there shouldn't be a problem. If your pills look like legitimate pills (i.e. no mitsubishi logos, diamonds, butterflies, or sketchy gel-capped things), and you have a "normal" amount (in other words, you don't have 2000 80mg oxycontins hidden in your rectum), then you're most likely okay.
I wonder how this system would work on detecting a complex biological powder, such as Anthrax spores.
As I understand it, the ancient concept of an "atom" was more philosophical, whereas Dalton's concept was made in order to explain experimental results. So he gets the credit for the theory.
Yeah they are anti-american in the same way that Noam Chomsky is anti-semitic. They disagree with the group that they are a part of so they are anti-$whatever.
Uh, well, that and the fact that Noam wrote an introduction to a book by an anti-semitic author by the name of Robert Faurisson who denied that the holocaust took place. Noam described Faurisson's holocaust-denial statements as "findings", and said:
"I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust."
Link Here
and the intonation for each syllable is...?
LOL.. Yea the Rosenburgs which the former soviet union admit were spies who helped them get the A-bomb. It's call treason, it's still punishable by death.
Read my post. It's almost for certain that Julius was passing stuff along, but he wasn't the one that gave the A-bomb to the Soviets. Who were our allies at the time.
What would the government possibly gain from convicting an innocent man?
The same thing the government gained when it executed the Rosenbergs for relatively minor espionage crimes.
(Not to say that the Rosenbergs didn't act as spies, but they didn't do anything as bad as some people did.
(Cost of paying someone overseas + overhead costs of remote management + costs related to misunderstandings/errors + inconvenience) is still less than (Cost of paying you to sit in your underwear and "work" for 2 hours a day in between slashdot postings).
sorry folks, isn't there more important things to talk about?
Personally I found this discussion to be a lot more interesting than the usual non-nerd stuff that gets talked about on slashdot.
My take on the "interstellar travel" issue is that since the Earth is not an intentional means of interstellar transportation, it really shouldn't count as a "spaceship".
Shoplifters take something 'real' like bananas. (Aren't bananas what all shoplifters are after?) When someone takes a banana out of a bowl, then the bowl is one banana short.
This explains how Piracy is stealing.
"Loss" is not the only consideration. As stated:
Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss.
There are many other examples given of different methods to calculate loss/damages/liability. But interestingly, one method is the "forced licensing" method, where the amount of damages is calculated as what would be realized if all royalties and licenses were paid.
In other words, If you sold 100 copies of a CD that sold for $15, then the damages would be $1500. And if you allowed a thousand downloads of a thousand CDs then the damages would be $15,000,000.
This question is answered here.
They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving.
I feel obligated to point out that people starving is usually not a matter of money, but a matter of politics. Take Zimbabwe, for instance, where the US now sends half a million tons of food aid, when the country used to be a net food exporter. Why? Because President Mugabe seized the most productive farms in the country because they were owned by whites. And now those farms lie fallow and the people starve.
Political causes are at the root of famines in Ethiopia, China's "Great Leap Forward" (The worst famine in recorded history), and even the Great Irish Potato famine, where there was actually enough food even after the potato crop failed, but the other crops were taken to port under military guard and exported to other countries.
Throwing more money at the famine problem is not likely to solve it, despite what Sally Struthers et. al. would like to have you think.
A bunch of well intentioned individuals with no accountability for their actions construct a ship that will launch you into space, maybe.
As opposed to the great amount of accountability that was shown after the Challenger blew up in 1986?
It's a little soon after Columbia to pass judgement, but you have to remember that in the current situation if you don't like the way NASA does things, what are you going to do, go to the Shuttle store down the street?
Copying currency really doesn't apply here; as its value is imaginary,
Currency's value may be transient and arbitrary, but it is by no means imaginary. Money is just another unit of measurement. And just as a paper bill has certain dimensions (according to arbitrary units), and weight (also according to arbitrary units), there is also an inherent value to it. How do you measure it? Easy, by asking "how much is it worth"?
They are stealing exclusive distribution rights, but they are not making any money off of it, which makes it a difficult thing to label. But it's not stealing.
How does failing to make money off of something turn stealing into not-stealing?
No matter how hard you try, you can't prove that after I copy your CD, you have something less than you had before.
Imagine I had a CD of Britney Spears's latest album. Now this CD has a certain value, which I could realize by selling, say to some Britney-lover on ebay or something.
Okay, now you surreptitiously copy my CD. 300,000,000 times. And give one to every single person in the United States. Now I still have my single copy of Britney Spears's latest album, but now when I go on ebay, there are now 299,999,999 copies being sold, and the only person that might have ever wanted to buy my CD already has it. So now my CD is worthless. I can not realize any value from it.
My personal assets are now worth $5 (or whatever the price is) less than they were before you went ahead on your copying spree. In other words, I now have something less than I did before. From copying.
I don't know what a fair price is. I'd gladly spend $50 to see a concert of a band that I like rather than $15 for their CD.
You're avoiding the question. One of your key arguments is that copying CDs is morally justified because of the price of the CDs. I am asking that if CDs were cheaper, would copying CDs no longer be morally justified?
I'm a 26-year-old Extra, which I'll admit is somewhat young for the hobby,
:)
While I'm a 28 year old general class (I think that's what that name is, if they haven't changed it), I haven't actually been active in ham radio for years. Because I got my license when I was 13. Now that was young! Unfortunately I just ended up losing interest to other hobbies, but I still keep my license current with the FCC, and I still have my old 2 meter handheld around here, which I turn on every now and then just to hit a few local repeaters. And I still remember most of my morse code, I had to follow it up to 20wpm at the time, I believe they've removed most of the code requirements now, though, as you probably know.
Okay, now i sound like an old man.
This is N6RWE, signing off.
A $20 bill represents a promise from the US government that you can use it to pay taxes to them for their services. A $1 bill is the sme thing, but pays for 1/20th the amount of governmental services.
Of course I realize that there is a difference between a $20 bill and a $1 bill, my point was that the difference was not a result of the physical properties of the bills, but as a result of a non-physical value.
To combine my example with yours, imagine if I managed to devise a way to copy your $20 bill. After making copies of your bill, you would still have your bill, I would not have taken away anything physical from you, but your $20 is now worth less than it was. And, if I made enough copies, your $20 bill would become worthless. So I have essentially removed $20 from you without having to resort to physically take it.
Your comments about the profitability and costs of CD production are beside the point. If someone feels that CD costs are too high they are free to not buy the CD. But your opinion on the reasonableness of those prices is no excuse for stealing something that is not yours. And it is stealing, as I pointed out in the previous paragraph. Remember that my original point was that "stealing" does not necessarily have to involve a physical item.
Now I also understand why certain consumers have started copying music, it's certainly cheaper to spend a few cents on media and bandwidth than it is to pay $15-$20/CD. But that doesn't make it morally correct. Of course "Morality" is usually not enough reason to stop some people from doing something, which is why there needs to be enforcement and punishment. Hence my support for the RIAA in this endeavor, where they are seeking to punish the people who are doing something wrong, rather than punish EVERYONE (via the destruction of legitimate P2P networks).
As an aside, I also ask that if you feel that CD prices are wildly inflated, what would you consider to be a fair price? $10? $5? Now realizing that these prices are still far above what someone will pay to copy them, do you still think that copying would be justified?
for which I wouldn't pay a single cent
Actually you did pay costs, in terms of bandwidth costs, hardware depreciation, and most importantly, your time. If you really "wouldn't pay a single cent", you wouldn't have even spent any time downloading it. Don't give yourself credit for being cheaper than you really are.
So what you're really saying is that you downloaded it because it is cheaper to do it that way than by buying it in the store. You should remember that cries of "It was too expensive!" is not a valid excuse for stealing something.
What is this "something" that was taken away?
The intrinsic value of the property was decreased. This is the "something" that was taken. It is not a physical item, but it is real, as it can be measured (though money) and exchanged. And if something can be measured and exchanged, just as a physical item is, then in many cases it can be considered the same as a physical item, especially when speaking in terms of the very units of measurement used to evaluate it in the first place.
For example, suppose you had a stack of US$20 bills, and I took them and replaced them with a physically identical stack of US$1 bills. Now, in strictly physical terms, nothing has been lost, because I have replaced your pile of paper with an equivalent stack of paper. But I'm sure that you would agree that there has been a theft of US$19 per piece of paper, because the value of the paper has changed, even if the physical properties have not (beyond superficial changes in writing on the surface). This is why value matters, even if it is not physically assigned to an item such as a TV.
I was going to post something along these lines, but I wanted to check to see if someone else did, too bad you did it anonymously.
The thing that was very bad and dangerous about the RIAA's previous position was that they wanted to shut down a technology because they didn't agree with one particular use. That would punish everyone, even if a user was using it legimately. This is what happened with DAT tapes, which is why I had to pay through the nose for them, even though I was doing my own home-recording of my own music.
I'm very happy to see this change in tactics. I'm not a big fan of the RIAA, but I am a big fan of technology.
You can't leave a truck on the street doors wide open full of big screen TV's all night and bust people who take them.
Sure you can. It's called a "sting". Making a crime easy to commit is not entrapment. Asking someone to commit a crime is entrapment.
Piracy involves taking value away from someone else's property without compensating them for that loss. Taking something without compensating for it, whether or not the "thing" in question is a physical item, is stealing.
Second, piracy is not stealing. Stealing entails depriving a party of use. Piracy is just unauthorized copying. Not stealing.
Piracy decreases the inherent value of an item or property while not compensating the owner of item or property for that lost value. Unlawfully taking something of value without giving compensation is stealing. In other words, piracy is stealing.
Yes but lasers don't require megawatthours of electricity to generate. This sort of thing absolutely requires super high energies...
Therefore there will probably never be a commercial application to quark gluon plasma generation.
It often isn't the actual scientific experiment that is important, it's the knowledge that is gained through that experiment. For example, and this is slightly related to this experiment, in the 30s Stern and Gerlach sent a beam of hydrogen atoms through an inhomogeneous magnetic field and detected the nuclear magnetic moment. Later on Rabi sent a beam of LiCl molecules through oscillating magnetic fields to test if there was a magnetic resonance effect happening at a certain frequency.
Now neither of these experiments are used in applications today, but what they did do is establish the foundations of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, which today is used every day in MRI machines around the world. And while none of which use high energy beams in their operation, they wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the use of "non-applicable" experiments.