Being "against the glorification of immoral violence" is a straw-man, set up to demonize anyone who points out that his idea of "morality" is extremist.
I had just skimmed over the quote until you commented on it. I missed the immoral part, which is a shame, because that quote is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. I mean, really? You are against immoral violence? That is just brilliant.
I will go one step further than this Pragler twit:
"I, for one, am against immoral violence. However, I am completely for moral violence."
I would also like to add I am for moral boobies, penguins, and shoes. I am firmly against immoral sign posts, watches, and rhubarb patches.
I think that the reason digital distribution is so popular has nothing to do with logistical costs one way or the other. It has to do with the fact that unless you have a major publisher interested in giving you major shelf space in a store, you can't put your product somewhere were people can even buy it.
There is a bout 30 feet of shelf space in most non specialty stores that sell computer games. That might be room for all the titles in 1982, but that isn't going to cut it now.
The terrorists used mobile phones and tools like Google Earth to plan, coordinate and execute the operations, India and Israel have been howling about those tools ever since.
...and they are idiots for asking for access to like this. Anyone who is using services for sensitive information will just pre-encrypt, and they will be back to square 1.
...Is it me, or whenever Hollywood artists try to 'reinvent' some feature of a story or movie in a sequel, they overdo it and fail? This bike looks like ASS compared to the original tron bikes. What was so wrong with the original design that they had to re-do it?
Why the FBI chose to arrest them now is the mystery because the FBI knew for over a decade.
Part of the spy game is not letting on that you know what is going on. By letting them conduct operations in against non-critical assets, you get to see how they operate, who they work with, and who they answer to. You can unravel their network to watch and catch other agents. You can set them up to pass false information. You can collect vast amounts of incriminating evidence to use to force them to become double agents. You can find out what they think you are doing and what they are worried about, and use that to play on their fears.
if this is really just a math algorithm, you can't really patent it. If it is a software 'process', then you are good. Hire an attorney and get some pro advice before you go any further.
Also, you might do some research before submission to see if you haven't just discovered something that people have know about for the last 200 years, but you haven't talked to the right math professor to know about.
The artifacts of trading become more temporally frequent and more temporally limited; the artifacts of real economy (growth-recession cycle) don't change.
Agreed. Moreover, how is this my problem? If a firm chooses to automate trading and gets screwed because they didn't write a good algorithm, it's their problem. They played the market and lost. Their earnings will reflect this, and they will lose customers.
The only thing I object to is firms not disclosing the fact they are doing automated trading. If their clients know that algorithms are managing their money and not people, and still want to swim in the deep end, let them. If they are doing something as chancy as letting the computers have full control of trading, and not disclosing the fact to clients, they should be sued for reckless negligence.
I mean, at that point, why not just bet your client's life savings in a single big spin of a roulette wheel?
Your arguments are a lot of unlikely 'what ifs'. Yes, they are possible, but quite unlikely if the copyright is owned by any normal minded business person.
A good example of why your claims are unlikely, look at the works of Tolkien. His estate still owns the rights to all of his works, and his writing are in many top 100 lists of the 20th century. And yet, his works are widely available at a cost that is the same as novels.
So again, I don't think that this is a good argument for why copyright can be a bad thing.
Having a monopoly on publications of Shakespeare's works would probably affect the supply.
Not really. A publisher could restrict printing his works in an attempt to drive up demand, but since his works have been published for several hundred years, there is a pretty good sized secondary market. Eventually, given enough time, they could drive demand up, at the cost of a lot of missed sales. Since his plays are basically a luxury item, I am not sure that this would really work. So, I am suggesting the supply would be about the same as it is now, because there is no real financial incentive not to keep his works in print, and in the same quantity as we see now.
What if Shakespeare was still in copyright? Or Beethoven, or Bach or Chaucer or Gilbert and Sullivan.
While I think we are on the same side of the copyright issue, I think your argument isn't really a strong one. I mean, what would happen if Shakespeare's work was still under copyright? Books of his collected works would cost about the same (supply/demand would be about the same). I don't see a lot of obviously derivative work that isn't parody, which is allowed under copyright law. Academic analysis is also fair game, so we wouldn't lose out on the countless books about his writings. What would we lose here?
A better example might be some author's work that is important, but not the world's most renown writer. There isn't much risk of the Bard's work from going out of print, but this is a very real issue with lesser know authors.
Now you're just arguing with yourself. The entire reason behind the idea of "the internet routes around damage" is its physical and logical topology. I'm not sure you actually understand how the internet works.
I can't tell if you are just stupid or trolling, lets just assume the former.
The Internet topology is designed to rout around damaged segments. The comparison of censorship to physical network damage is a virtual damage to physical damage analogy.
The reason I say the topology is irrelevant to the point I was making is that the analogy is the same basic concept wither you are speaking about physical damage to the network, or simply censorship.
If that isn't plain enough for you:
The Internet routers rout packets around damaged segments. People who can't get the information they want from censored sources connected to the Internet look elsewhere on the Internet.
How much filtering and blocking has to happen before you realize that you do not have an Internet anymore, but a loosely connected set of Intranets?
Pointless semantics. What do you think that the Internet is but a loosely connected set of networks? It has been that way for decades.
The physical or logical topology of the Internet is irrelevant to this discussion. When people try to restrict or control the flow of information, users will 'vote with their feet' as the saying goes, and look for it elsewhere.
Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.
Wrong. When Pakistan starts behaving like lunatics, the rest of the Internet will just bypass them. They might be able to exert some control within their borders, but that will at worst, cause the rest of the Internet to stop at the edge of their borders/routers. They are damaged, we will ignore them and route around them.
It seems like there is an interesting business opening here: Selling multiple contracts for a single device. It shouldn't be too hard to write some software that allows users to switch context on a device to separate work and personal stuff. Get to it, you money hungry corporate sharks!
Imagine if you could lift an aircraft carrier sized ship in to space with nearly no energy, then accelerate to.999 light speed with no more thrust than a model rocket.
Note that one situation means low/zero gravitic mass, the other means low/zero inertial mass. You might be able to arbitrarily control both
This is just a wild stab in the dark, but I suspect that were you to create a working 'gravity shield', that the energy expenditure to cancel gravity's effects as you accelerated towards the speed of light will be the same as it would be if you were to simply accelerate towards the speed of light. (or possible more)
The laws of physics don't tend to hand out free lunches.
The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so.
To play the devil's advocate, lasers don't make sucking chest wounds (yet?). I found it funny that you are trying to justify how dangerous a small laser is (that can cause small burns or blindness) by comparing it to something that can kill a group of people in within a few seconds. I think that is the point of a machine gun, but probably not the point of a small laser. Nice hysterical POV, though.
I am not a theoretical astrophysicist, but I pretend to be one on Slashdot...
One thing that bothers me about this paper is that it suggest that by increasing the angular momentum (and/or the charge) to a great degree relative to the mass will cause the singularity to be exposed.
The problem I see is that as you add angular momentum or charge to a black hole, (even if you do it without directly dumping mass in), you are still adding mass. (E=mc^2, remember energy is mass). Without breaking out the old pencil and paper to check the numbers, I would suspect that by adding enough energy to the system to get it into an 'extreme' state with respect respect to the initial mass, you will have increased the mass to the point that you wont have enough charge or momentum to expose the singularity.
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
If this happens, they can spy on me, but I can also launch a drone and spy on them. And to be truthful, the government and it's employees have a hell of a lot more to hide from me than I do from them...
(and no, 64 bit Photoshop is not enough, let's get a 64 bit flash).
Lord, why? 64 bit is the size of the address space, so if you move it to 64 bit for comparability reasons, you give flash developers the chance to load flash files that are over 4 GB in size into your active memory.
Well, you might be affecting BP a little but you're having a much larger impact on the guy who owns that station. A huge impact if you're there all day appealing to people's empathy for the Gulf.
very true, but when do boycotts NOT hurt the middle man? It is kind of rare that you can directly target a company's bottom line without collateral damage. The real problem with boycotting local BP stations isn't that you might destroy a few local businesses, its that BP has a product that cannot be tracked. If BP cannot sell its product via retail, it can just sell it's product to other companies to resell, and you will never know.
Slashdot Mirror
Being "against the glorification of immoral violence" is a straw-man, set up to demonize anyone who points out that his idea of "morality" is extremist.
I had just skimmed over the quote until you commented on it. I missed the immoral part, which is a shame, because that quote is about the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. I mean, really? You are against immoral violence? That is just brilliant.
I will go one step further than this Pragler twit:
"I, for one, am against immoral violence. However, I am completely for moral violence."
I would also like to add I am for moral boobies, penguins, and shoes. I am firmly against immoral sign posts, watches, and rhubarb patches.
4) congress is filled with stupid fuckups who can't allocate the cash to do something right...
I think that the reason digital distribution is so popular has nothing to do with logistical costs one way or the other. It has to do with the fact that unless you have a major publisher interested in giving you major shelf space in a store, you can't put your product somewhere were people can even buy it.
There is a bout 30 feet of shelf space in most non specialty stores that sell computer games. That might be room for all the titles in 1982, but that isn't going to cut it now.
The terrorists used mobile phones and tools like Google Earth to plan, coordinate and execute the operations, India and Israel have been howling about those tools ever since.
...and they are idiots for asking for access to like this. Anyone who is using services for sensitive information will just pre-encrypt, and they will be back to square 1.
...Is it me, or whenever Hollywood artists try to 'reinvent' some feature of a story or movie in a sequel, they overdo it and fail? This bike looks like ASS compared to the original tron bikes. What was so wrong with the original design that they had to re-do it?
Why the FBI chose to arrest them now is the mystery because the FBI knew for over a decade.
Part of the spy game is not letting on that you know what is going on. By letting them conduct operations in against non-critical assets, you get to see how they operate, who they work with, and who they answer to. You can unravel their network to watch and catch other agents. You can set them up to pass false information. You can collect vast amounts of incriminating evidence to use to force them to become double agents. You can find out what they think you are doing and what they are worried about, and use that to play on their fears.
if this is really just a math algorithm, you can't really patent it. If it is a software 'process', then you are good. Hire an attorney and get some pro advice before you go any further.
Also, you might do some research before submission to see if you haven't just discovered something that people have know about for the last 200 years, but you haven't talked to the right math professor to know about.
The artifacts of trading become more temporally frequent and more temporally limited; the artifacts of real economy (growth-recession cycle) don't change.
Agreed. Moreover, how is this my problem? If a firm chooses to automate trading and gets screwed because they didn't write a good algorithm, it's their problem. They played the market and lost. Their earnings will reflect this, and they will lose customers.
The only thing I object to is firms not disclosing the fact they are doing automated trading. If their clients know that algorithms are managing their money and not people, and still want to swim in the deep end, let them. If they are doing something as chancy as letting the computers have full control of trading, and not disclosing the fact to clients, they should be sued for reckless negligence.
I mean, at that point, why not just bet your client's life savings in a single big spin of a roulette wheel?
Your arguments are a lot of unlikely 'what ifs'. Yes, they are possible, but quite unlikely if the copyright is owned by any normal minded business person.
A good example of why your claims are unlikely, look at the works of Tolkien. His estate still owns the rights to all of his works, and his writing are in many top 100 lists of the 20th century. And yet, his works are widely available at a cost that is the same as novels.
So again, I don't think that this is a good argument for why copyright can be a bad thing.
Having a monopoly on publications of Shakespeare's works would probably affect the supply.
Not really. A publisher could restrict printing his works in an attempt to drive up demand, but since his works have been published for several hundred years, there is a pretty good sized secondary market. Eventually, given enough time, they could drive demand up, at the cost of a lot of missed sales. Since his plays are basically a luxury item, I am not sure that this would really work. So, I am suggesting the supply would be about the same as it is now, because there is no real financial incentive not to keep his works in print, and in the same quantity as we see now.
What if Shakespeare was still in copyright? Or Beethoven, or Bach or Chaucer or Gilbert and Sullivan.
While I think we are on the same side of the copyright issue, I think your argument isn't really a strong one. I mean, what would happen if Shakespeare's work was still under copyright? Books of his collected works would cost about the same (supply/demand would be about the same). I don't see a lot of obviously derivative work that isn't parody, which is allowed under copyright law. Academic analysis is also fair game, so we wouldn't lose out on the countless books about his writings. What would we lose here?
A better example might be some author's work that is important, but not the world's most renown writer. There isn't much risk of the Bard's work from going out of print, but this is a very real issue with lesser know authors.
What about Fox and Cox?
Fox already has plenty of cocks in their news division. I don't see what such a merger would get them...
Now you're just arguing with yourself. The entire reason behind the idea of "the internet routes around damage" is its physical and logical topology. I'm not sure you actually understand how the internet works.
I can't tell if you are just stupid or trolling, lets just assume the former.
The Internet topology is designed to rout around damaged segments. The comparison of censorship to physical network damage is a virtual damage to physical damage analogy.
The reason I say the topology is irrelevant to the point I was making is that the analogy is the same basic concept wither you are speaking about physical damage to the network, or simply censorship.
If that isn't plain enough for you:
The Internet routers rout packets around damaged segments. People who can't get the information they want from censored sources connected to the Internet look elsewhere on the Internet.
The statement you made is wrong. QED.
How much filtering and blocking has to happen before you realize that you do not have an Internet anymore, but a loosely connected set of Intranets?
Pointless semantics. What do you think that the Internet is but a loosely connected set of networks? It has been that way for decades.
The physical or logical topology of the Internet is irrelevant to this discussion. When people try to restrict or control the flow of information, users will 'vote with their feet' as the saying goes, and look for it elsewhere.
Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.
Wrong. When Pakistan starts behaving like lunatics, the rest of the Internet will just bypass them. They might be able to exert some control within their borders, but that will at worst, cause the rest of the Internet to stop at the edge of their borders/routers. They are damaged, we will ignore them and route around them.
It seems like there is an interesting business opening here: Selling multiple contracts for a single device. It shouldn't be too hard to write some software that allows users to switch context on a device to separate work and personal stuff. Get to it, you money hungry corporate sharks!
I thought the whole point of chatroulette was a gamble between seeing an actual person or just a dude jacking off.
Like global thermonuclear war, "The only way to win is not to play".
Imagine if you could lift an aircraft carrier sized ship in to space with nearly no energy, then accelerate to .999 light speed with no more thrust than a model rocket.
Note that one situation means low/zero gravitic mass, the other means low/zero inertial mass. You might be able to arbitrarily control both
This is just a wild stab in the dark, but I suspect that were you to create a working 'gravity shield', that the energy expenditure to cancel gravity's effects as you accelerated towards the speed of light will be the same as it would be if you were to simply accelerate towards the speed of light. (or possible more)
The laws of physics don't tend to hand out free lunches.
The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so.
To play the devil's advocate, lasers don't make sucking chest wounds (yet?). I found it funny that you are trying to justify how dangerous a small laser is (that can cause small burns or blindness) by comparing it to something that can kill a group of people in within a few seconds. I think that is the point of a machine gun, but probably not the point of a small laser. Nice hysterical POV, though.
I am not a theoretical astrophysicist, but I pretend to be one on Slashdot...
One thing that bothers me about this paper is that it suggest that by increasing the angular momentum (and/or the charge) to a great degree relative to the mass will cause the singularity to be exposed.
The problem I see is that as you add angular momentum or charge to a black hole, (even if you do it without directly dumping mass in), you are still adding mass. (E=mc^2, remember energy is mass). Without breaking out the old pencil and paper to check the numbers, I would suspect that by adding enough energy to the system to get it into an 'extreme' state with respect respect to the initial mass, you will have increased the mass to the point that you wont have enough charge or momentum to expose the singularity.
"These are tough times. If a man can get a job, he might not look too close at what that job is."
true, but aren't we talking about robo-calling? Is the job slump so bad that robots have to accept these crappy jobs in call centers?
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
If this happens, they can spy on me, but I can also launch a drone and spy on them. And to be truthful, the government and it's employees have a hell of a lot more to hide from me than I do from them...
(and no, 64 bit Photoshop is not enough, let's get a 64 bit flash).
Lord, why? 64 bit is the size of the address space, so if you move it to 64 bit for comparability reasons, you give flash developers the chance to load flash files that are over 4 GB in size into your active memory.
And lord knows, they will.
Well, you might be affecting BP a little but you're having a much larger impact on the guy who owns that station. A huge impact if you're there all day appealing to people's empathy for the Gulf.
very true, but when do boycotts NOT hurt the middle man? It is kind of rare that you can directly target a company's bottom line without collateral damage. The real problem with boycotting local BP stations isn't that you might destroy a few local businesses, its that BP has a product that cannot be tracked. If BP cannot sell its product via retail, it can just sell it's product to other companies to resell, and you will never know.
however, jackson did a good job with the trilogy.
Elf shield surfing.
Dwarf tossing jokes.
Rewriting parts of the story to make it 'more exciting'.
Let's just say that he did ok, hmmm?