The sound of projectile reaching the speed of sound is noiseless?
Yes. The projectile doesn't produce any sound, hence no sound waves can accumulate. (Howstuffworks article)
If you attach a sound buffering device, (silencer) the thing would require much more energy to reach the same muzzle velocity.
A silencer works by decreasing the pressure caused by the hot gas resulting from firing normal ammunition. It's completely useless on magnet-fired weapons, which produce practically no heat, and hence very little pressure. (Howstuffworks again)
In many countries, and I believe in USA too, you don't have to accept a license you haven't signed. If you don't sign the license, you only have the rights copyright provides you, which for closed source software for home use usually is better than what the license provides you. These rights includes installing the software on every computer in your home, but not every one in your company. This means you're "owning" your copy of the product. I attended the trial against Jon Johansen (co-author and distributor of DeCSS), where he explained they had used an uncompression program rather than the installation program to install the Xing DVD tool, in order to avoid accepting the click-through license. The prosecutor accepted this reasoning. The defender later stated that restrictions printed on the outside of DVD covers were invalid as long as the buyer didn't sign an agreement in the store. This was also undisputed by the prosecutor.
Of course there is, and retailers (in IP and non-IP) do it all the time; they hike up prices to compensate for losses. It's exactly the same as your speeding analogy
Copying illegally would correspond to driving at infinite speed; when you copy illegally you aren't even slightly paying attention to the price. Hence, it's not an analogy, which is what I was trying to explain.
So basically you're saying that since breaking the speed limit is *expected* and can be *planned for*, that speeding is not a crime, or just that it is not morally wrong?
I didn't place the word "most" in front of "people" accidentaly. Neither did I say speeding is not criminal, but I said that most people's speeding is not a problem or morally wrong. Interpreting this as "speeding is [universally] not morally wrong" makes it seem like you wanted to misinterpret.
I don't think you'll be able to explain how speeding is 'not a problem and not morally wrong' when speeders have killed many people
The speeding is not the problem, and it's not even the only cause of the problem (i.e. traffic accidents). One cause is that you got into the car in the first place. Driving unreasonably unsafe is also a cause, and doesn't follow with neccesity from driving above speed limit. Driving below the speed limit can also be unsafe, and even morally wrong. Driving safely at whatever speed is what's morally correct, and that's what most people try to do.
However, if I can 'take' a copy of something, and leave you with the exact same thing you had before, I don't see how that's been 'stolen.'
I haven't said "stolen" either. I said the best comparasion was sneaking into a theatre after no more tickets can be sold. The same people who copy illegally would probably do that, if they could be completely sure to get away with it.
That bit about speeding is absolutely ridiculous. A percentage of drivers will always speed, but that percentage will always change. I guarantee if you set a speed limit of 20km/h on a major six-lane highway you'll get a helluva lot of people breaking it.
This is completely irrelevant. I didn't say the percentage was not a function of the speed and the driving conditions. Neither is unrealistic scenerios relevant for the argument. I was trying to explain why the speeding most people currently do isn't a problem or morally wrong, while the illegal copying many people do is; there is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally, because the right amount is zero. You can control the speed at which people drive, by designing roads and putting up road signs accordingly. Everybody knows that a lot of people will speed, and a slightly intelligent person will know that the speed will to a great degree depend upon the speed limit. People speeding on the best highways in Norway (speed limit 90km/h) drive a lot slower than people speeding at comparable highways in continental Europe (speed limit 120km/h).
Similarly, I suppose, if you set a $20 pricetag on a $0.50 piece of plastic and metal, you'll get a helluva lot of people copying it.
Do you honestly believe that production cost of the strings of 0's and 1's on DVD's or CD's is negligible?
The analogy to speeding was a nice one, but a better one is videotape copying and cassette tape copying. Remember those technologies that have been around for years? Remember how the record/movie industry constantly complained about them? Remember how IT DIDN'T MATTER A DAMN because people still bought movies and still copied tapes and still listened to music just the same as they always have and always will.
In all fairness, tape copying is much more cumbersome and less rewarding: you get a substantial degradation of quality which increases at each generation, to achieve maximum quality you have to copy at play speed or less, the medium you copy to costs quite a lot of money when compared to lossy compressed audio on modern mass storage devices and you didn't have access to half of all music in the world within minutes. It is a pretty damn bad analogy.
One can define morale as Kant did: you can only act in such a way that the maxime for your action can be universalized. Thus, if you copy music without the artist's permission, you must want everyone else in the universe to do the same thing. The implications of this is that some will continue to buy the same amount of CD's, but most will buy a lot fewer, and some will even quit buying CD's. This will drive many record companies out of business, leaving only the largest ones and ones with exceptionally enthusiastic customers. The only source of income for non-performing artists will mostly disappear. I do not believe illegal copying to be an act of morale; I believe it to be pure egoism. Therefore, I don't think most of the people who "pirate" will want it to be the law, but many people will say so, in order to fool themselves, so they can continue having a nice picture of themselves as good people ("I'm not hypocritical; I do the same thing I tell other people to do" does sound a bit like morale).
IMHO, piracy can be best compared to sneaking into a movie theater just after the movie has begun, and no further tickets will be sold anyway. The reasoning is left as an excercise to the reader.
About speeding: the people who design the roads know that a certain percentage of drivers will speed by a certain amount of km/h, so they simply adjust the signs accordingly down (an official at the road department was quoted saying this in the newspaper once). So when they want to people below 90 km/h, they can put up signs saying max. 60 km/h, and people will drive in 80 km/h, and everybody wins: the drivers are kept under the safety limit, and they even think they are getting there rather efficiently, since they are driving a bit too fast.
If a lowly employee releases software, my guess is that he does not have the rights to do so.
He can make whatever software he wants privately and release it under whatever license. The situation is different if he developed it under the scope of an employment contract, which doesn't seem likely to me.
Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth, each person would still have 340 thousand trillion addresses.
You will need a very smart allocation scheme to be able to utilize the address space that good. After all, every router cannot know about every single host in the world.
You guys (and gals) talk so much shit about the MPAA but who pays their salaries? You do. Everytime you see the matrix / LOTR your paying their lawyers to hunt people down. Never forget that.
On the other hand, they wouldn't hunt down anyone if nobody pirated. I might fund the hunting, but you're the one who's encouraging it. Never forget that.
Well, imagine the waste of paper it would do if it *did* print every interaction.
It would be similar to printing all the points in a circle. Even if it was possible, it would still be only one paper, but you're right: even that's a waste.
Why doesn't someone create a website where you can register your e-mail address to avoid getting spam? Then spammers could check their list against this list, and remove the addresses of spam haters. That would give the spammer a much higher positive response rate, since he won't ever sell to any of these people anyway, and he will also get less negative response. Everybody wins!
Lumpy is right. If you actually learn about fiberoptics before you pan someone's idea you might be able to make smart posts.
I think you misunderstood your parent. How do you know that you will never want more bandwidth to every single home than "a technology that is easier to terminate and cheaper to work with" can provide? It doesn't matter if neighbouring blocks collectively can have a 1Tbps connection if the last 50 meters is twisted pair. As you implied, if you run fiber up to your home, you will never have to upgrade your cabling, but any copper- or airborne technology will become outdated.
failing to support my NVidia card (Your kernel is too old, update. Oh wait, now it's too new, downgrade. RPM compile? I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that)
and with the help of a FAQ I was able to build NVidia drivers for 5.0
Sounds to me like you tried to install the proprietary driver for Linux, and the free driver for FreeBSD. Did you try to build the free driver for Linux? It might have been a lot easier.
FreeBSD OpenOffice 1.1 (Side note: needs a full install per user. Yuck.)
I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.
How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?
Slashdot Mirror
The sound of projectile reaching the speed of sound is noiseless?
Yes. The projectile doesn't produce any sound, hence no sound waves can accumulate. (Howstuffworks article)
If you attach a sound buffering device, (silencer) the thing would require much more energy to reach the same muzzle velocity.
A silencer works by decreasing the pressure caused by the hot gas resulting from firing normal ammunition. It's completely useless on magnet-fired weapons, which produce practically no heat, and hence very little pressure. (Howstuffworks again)
Don't try to fool me because I'm a seasoned expert at this. If you just use an AWP with an aimhack you can waste all of them before they turn around.
I challenge that! What server are you playing on?
In many countries, and I believe in USA too, you don't have to accept a license you haven't signed. If you don't sign the license, you only have the rights copyright provides you, which for closed source software for home use usually is better than what the license provides you. These rights includes installing the software on every computer in your home, but not every one in your company. This means you're "owning" your copy of the product. I attended the trial against Jon Johansen (co-author and distributor of DeCSS), where he explained they had used an uncompression program rather than the installation program to install the Xing DVD tool, in order to avoid accepting the click-through license. The prosecutor accepted this reasoning. The defender later stated that restrictions printed on the outside of DVD covers were invalid as long as the buyer didn't sign an agreement in the store. This was also undisputed by the prosecutor.
Of course there is, and retailers (in IP and non-IP) do it all the time; they hike up prices to compensate for losses. It's exactly the same as your speeding analogy
Copying illegally would correspond to driving at infinite speed; when you copy illegally you aren't even slightly paying attention to the price. Hence, it's not an analogy, which is what I was trying to explain.
So basically you're saying that since breaking the speed limit is *expected* and can be *planned for*, that speeding is not a crime, or just that it is not morally wrong?
I didn't place the word "most" in front of "people" accidentaly. Neither did I say speeding is not criminal, but I said that most people's speeding is not a problem or morally wrong. Interpreting this as "speeding is [universally] not morally wrong" makes it seem like you wanted to misinterpret.
I don't think you'll be able to explain how speeding is 'not a problem and not morally wrong' when speeders have killed many people
The speeding is not the problem, and it's not even the only cause of the problem (i.e. traffic accidents). One cause is that you got into the car in the first place. Driving unreasonably unsafe is also a cause, and doesn't follow with neccesity from driving above speed limit. Driving below the speed limit can also be unsafe, and even morally wrong. Driving safely at whatever speed is what's morally correct, and that's what most people try to do.
However, if I can 'take' a copy of something, and leave you with the exact same thing you had before, I don't see how that's been 'stolen.'
I haven't said "stolen" either. I said the best comparasion was sneaking into a theatre after no more tickets can be sold. The same people who copy illegally would probably do that, if they could be completely sure to get away with it.
That bit about speeding is absolutely ridiculous. A percentage of drivers will always speed, but that percentage will always change. I guarantee if you set a speed limit of 20km/h on a major six-lane highway you'll get a helluva lot of people breaking it.
This is completely irrelevant. I didn't say the percentage was not a function of the speed and the driving conditions. Neither is unrealistic scenerios relevant for the argument. I was trying to explain why the speeding most people currently do isn't a problem or morally wrong, while the illegal copying many people do is; there is no way to adjust the music listening public to copying just the right amount of music illegally, because the right amount is zero. You can control the speed at which people drive, by designing roads and putting up road signs accordingly. Everybody knows that a lot of people will speed, and a slightly intelligent person will know that the speed will to a great degree depend upon the speed limit. People speeding on the best highways in Norway (speed limit 90km/h) drive a lot slower than people speeding at comparable highways in continental Europe (speed limit 120km/h).
Similarly, I suppose, if you set a $20 pricetag on a $0.50 piece of plastic and metal, you'll get a helluva lot of people copying it.
Do you honestly believe that production cost of the strings of 0's and 1's on DVD's or CD's is negligible?
The analogy to speeding was a nice one, but a better one is videotape copying and cassette tape copying. Remember those technologies that have been around for years? Remember how the record/movie industry constantly complained about them? Remember how IT DIDN'T MATTER A DAMN because people still bought movies and still copied tapes and still listened to music just the same as they always have and always will.
In all fairness, tape copying is much more cumbersome and less rewarding: you get a substantial degradation of quality which increases at each generation, to achieve maximum quality you have to copy at play speed or less, the medium you copy to costs quite a lot of money when compared to lossy compressed audio on modern mass storage devices and you didn't have access to half of all music in the world within minutes. It is a pretty damn bad analogy.
One can define morale as Kant did: you can only act in such a way that the maxime for your action can be universalized. Thus, if you copy music without the artist's permission, you must want everyone else in the universe to do the same thing. The implications of this is that some will continue to buy the same amount of CD's, but most will buy a lot fewer, and some will even quit buying CD's. This will drive many record companies out of business, leaving only the largest ones and ones with exceptionally enthusiastic customers. The only source of income for non-performing artists will mostly disappear. I do not believe illegal copying to be an act of morale; I believe it to be pure egoism. Therefore, I don't think most of the people who "pirate" will want it to be the law, but many people will say so, in order to fool themselves, so they can continue having a nice picture of themselves as good people ("I'm not hypocritical; I do the same thing I tell other people to do" does sound a bit like morale).
IMHO, piracy can be best compared to sneaking into a movie theater just after the movie has begun, and no further tickets will be sold anyway. The reasoning is left as an excercise to the reader.
About speeding: the people who design the roads know that a certain percentage of drivers will speed by a certain amount of km/h, so they simply adjust the signs accordingly down (an official at the road department was quoted saying this in the newspaper once). So when they want to people below 90 km/h, they can put up signs saying max. 60 km/h, and people will drive in 80 km/h, and everybody wins: the drivers are kept under the safety limit, and they even think they are getting there rather efficiently, since they are driving a bit too fast.
Now, it is back; the same, yet different. And I weep again.
Don't let a troll article make that judgement for you.
the Hackers Dictionary was WRITTEN by ESR around 1990 if memory serves
This entry in Wikipedia says "The Jargon File (hereafter referred to as `jargon-1' or `the File') was begun by Raphael Finkel at Stanford in 1975."
If a lowly employee releases software, my guess is that he does not have the rights to do so.
He can make whatever software he wants privately and release it under whatever license. The situation is different if he developed it under the scope of an employment contract, which doesn't seem likely to me.
DeCSS is still seen by the masses as being solely for the purposes of theft
Luckily this is not how the judges in Norway viewed it when Jon Johansen was acquitted in January.
No, because most of them share a religion that at best, tolerates, and at worst, actively encourages killing of infidels.
Sounds a lot like christianity
Even if there were a billion trillion people on Earth, each person would still have 340 thousand trillion addresses.
You will need a very smart allocation scheme to be able to utilize the address space that good. After all, every router cannot know about every single host in the world.
You guys (and gals) talk so much shit about the MPAA but who pays their salaries? You do. Everytime you see the matrix / LOTR your paying their lawyers to hunt people down. Never forget that.
On the other hand, they wouldn't hunt down anyone if nobody pirated. I might fund the hunting, but you're the one who's encouraging it. Never forget that.
It's from Debian's fortune database.
Why not, for the sake of simplicity, avoid making bad analogies when the situation is perfectly comprehensible without?
Well, imagine the waste of paper it would do if it *did* print every interaction.
It would be similar to printing all the points in a circle. Even if it was possible, it would still be only one paper, but you're right: even that's a waste.
You can't post an article like this without screenshots!
Airborne technology getting outdated?
Because of course everynow and then we have to pump all the air out of Earth's atmosphere to upgrade to a newer version.
What did you smoke? I didn't say air would be outdated, as this is normally not classified as technology nor airborne.
Why doesn't someone create a website where you can register your e-mail address to avoid getting spam? Then spammers could check their list against this list, and remove the addresses of spam haters. That would give the spammer a much higher positive response rate, since he won't ever sell to any of these people anyway, and he will also get less negative response. Everybody wins!
Lumpy is right. If you actually learn about fiberoptics before you pan someone's idea you might be able to make smart posts.
I think you misunderstood your parent. How do you know that you will never want more bandwidth to every single home than "a technology that is easier to terminate and cheaper to work with" can provide? It doesn't matter if neighbouring blocks collectively can have a 1Tbps connection if the last 50 meters is twisted pair. As you implied, if you run fiber up to your home, you will never have to upgrade your cabling, but any copper- or airborne technology will become outdated.
Eyecandy in the WM is pointless.
[...]
Abandon all dockapps, panels, kickers: replace it with Karamba + OpenGL to compete with Longhorn & OSX.
Why do you suddenly want to trash functionality, usability and hardware compatibility for the sake of eyecandy?
failing to support my NVidia card (Your kernel is too old, update. Oh wait, now it's too new, downgrade. RPM compile? I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that)
and with the help of a FAQ I was able to build NVidia drivers for 5.0
Sounds to me like you tried to install the proprietary driver for Linux, and the free driver for FreeBSD. Did you try to build the free driver for Linux? It might have been a lot easier.
FreeBSD OpenOffice 1.1 (Side note: needs a full install per user. Yuck.)
Did you try to install with the -net switch?
I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.
How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?