Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.
*ducks*
Well, one could, but it's like the difference between me giving you a car for free and a dealership selling you a car:
If, for example, the brakes turned out to be bad, I don't have to do shit about it. On the other hand, a dealer might actually be held responsible for fixing them.
The point is, there are typically different standards one is held to when giving something away for free vs. selling it.
(If I sell you something in a store for money, there is typically at least an implied warranty of merchantability.)
After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?
If this guy publishes real, verifiable contact information, I'd trust him, and I expect he does.
Of course, to me, asking if you can trust this guy is like asking if you can trust someone with the key to those shitty luggage locks they put on suitcases. If you gave a shit about security, you'd be using something else anyways.
Ideas are easy, deeds are difficult
Which is why "intellectual property" is such a bullshit concept.
No. Not all ideas are easy. Tell me, could you design a phased-array slotted waveguide radar antennta?
I thought not.
Could you take a ruler, measure one, make a few drawings and start selling your own? Probably.
"Intellectual property" is what makes sure that guy who can actually design the antenna gets paid.
Without patents, copyright, etc there's a lot less financial incentive for a company to do anything innovative.
Anyone can have good ideas, it's actually putting it into practice which is the difficult bit. Intellectual property implies that you can have an idea, patent it and then charge anyone who actually wants to put it into use. You should have to produce a *working* prototype for anything you want a patent on.
Well what if the guy is just a consultant working out of his house and he wants to sell the idea to someone else who actually has the facitites to build it? All you're proposing is yet another barrier for the small guys, for many of whom, the patent process is already too expensive.
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
Actually, what's funny/disturbing is that the inventors of the crossbow, machine gun, and atomic bomb (supposeldy) all said:
I have created a weapon so terrible it will end war!
(The implication being that casualty numbers would become unaccetable, and we would have to work our differences out peacefully.)
How wrong they were!
(Although one might argue that nuclear weapons actually prevented a WWIII between Russia and the US.)
Anyways, we have laws regarding crossbows, machineguns, and nuclear weapons, I don't see why we can't have a few more.
Of course what scares me the most is fscking with DNA. At no other time in human history has mankind had the capability to produce a self-replicating mistake.
You think nuclear weapns are bad? Imagine if they reproduced!
It's not as if a company with a market cap of of 13 BILLION dollars can just cash out and walk away from the table with 13 billion dollars.
Like is or not SUN, has to keep playing the game. It would loose even MORE money by trying to close up shop quickly.
A company has value for lots of reasons, besides pure, resellable assets: market position, reputation, etc.
What SUN needs is leadership like that which has helped Apple so much in recent years. If you look back far enough, you'll see a time when Apple was in quite a similar postion as SUN is today.
I'm not saying that SUN should start building sPods and sBooks. I think SUN needs to find its place in the market (hint: not the same place as Apple or Dell).
This is patently false. You only believe it to be true because you are obviously an imbecile. Your own quotation of my statement shows that your statement is patently false. MY viewpoint SPECIFICALLY STATES:
"This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have."
And I gave a specfic case where alternatives existed (Rosa Parks). It really shouldn't be this hard to understand.
You... are... an... idiot. I NEVER said that you should never break the law.
While you got one thing right, you didn't say "you should never break the law". But you did say that you should never break the law when alternatives exist. Read your own quote of....yourself. (above)
YOU are not justified in YOUR action.
What action? I've never claimed to have made any.
You have NOTHING to do with Rosa Parks.
I didn't claim to. From my original post regarding Rosa Parks:
"(And before you start making crazy assumptions: I used Rosa Parks as an example of the problems with your logic, not as an analogy for file traders.)"
Reading comprehesion is not your strongpoint is it? example analogy
And, incidentally, if you don't like me insulting you, feel free to use your foes list. You have it for a reason.
I'm not worried about it. All it really does is make you look bad. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of someone who is loosing an arguement.
In a straight vertical drop you will be accelerating at G (9.8 m/s^2), and the g-force you will feel is zero (yes it may be slightly off due to wind resistance and such but you can assume zero).
Actually, you would feel 1 G of force it's just that you ALWAYS feel 1 G of force pulling you towards the center of the earth. You're used to it.
If this car can accelerate to 60 mph in 3 seconds its average horizontal g-force will be about 1G. So if we are traveling on a flat surface you will have 1G down (gravity), and 1G horizontal. Add the two together and you will end up with a max G of 1.4 at an angle of 45 degrees down from horizontal. In summary, accelerating in this car in a straight line your body will feel a max g of about 1.4, in a freefall vertical drop your body will feel 0G. So the poster was incorrect.
Actually, you still feel 1G of force in the horizontal direction, regardless of the vertical forces. Anyways, calling someone "wrong" using this explanation is crazy because in the case of freefall, you're saying that you can't feel the 1G of vertical force, yet in the case of the car, you're suddenly are able to feel it?
You're not listening now, ou weren't listening before, and I have no reason to believe you will listen in the future. Due to the fact that you have conveniently rejected my acknowledgements of the legitimacy of civil disobedience as if I had never made them
...because you haven't.
is so logically baseless that I can't even imagine what was going through your mind when you wrote it. Rosa Parks' actions prove nothing about my philosophy
Sure they do.
You said:
I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this, because the simple fact is that you're trying justify an illegitimate action by saying that you're using it to stop another illegitimate action. This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have.
Rosa could have just quit riding the bus instead of getting arrested, therefore another action was availible. Thus, your viewpoint says that Rosa should have behaved differently.
This is basic reading comprehension here.
A sensible person would back down and say, "Ok. So I guess it doesn't make sense unequivocally to say that you should never break the law when "other options" are availible. Situations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
But of course, you aren't saying that. Instead, you're insulting me over the internet. Very impressive.
I wonder how long until car stereos start coming with a USB port which will, when a standard 'mass storage device' usb key is plugged into it, will treat it like a CD-R full of MP3s; play by directory, or play by playlist....
Me too.
If a decent company made one and it cost less than $500 (an easy price to hit), I would buy it in a heartbeat.
A boycott, dipshit. A boycott happened, not "rosa parks DID get up". Rather than misquoting me, perhaps you could have taken the time to read the text on the page of the goddamn link you posted:
..a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott..
And what is the text you're leaving out?
The rest of Parks' story is American history...her arrest and trial, a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and, finally, the Supreme Court's ruling in November 1956 that segregation on transportation is unconstitutional.
Why are you being so dense about this?
ROSA PARKS BROKE THE LAW. (And it was a good thing.)
IF ROSA PARKS HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BOYCOTT.
It's that simple. It's an easy example that proves why your philosophy of always working within the system arises from an oversimplistic view of the world.
Don't expect something that sounds like like "At Fillmore East" or "Live at Leeds." Feeds taken from a mixing console were intended to be routed to a PA system playing at ear-splitting volumes, not a 2 track master EQ'd for home listening. Making great-sounding live recordings in and of itself is quite an art form.
But the nice thing about board feeds is that the only drunken idiots you get on tape are the actual band memebers.
It doesn't mess up your recording if someone walks over to you and starts asking, "Hey! What's that?"
What the hell is wrong with buring a frickin audio CD?
It's lossless
It's cheaper (costs about 100X less for the media)
It will actually play with or without a computer......this means I can actually listen to it on the way home
The only advantage I see for this is that the keychains could be reusable, but even then, the cost of a burned CD is practically negiliable assuming this service costs more than $1.
I suppose the only REAL advantage you get is that the flash devices could be gang programmed more quickly, but if you were running more than a half dozen or so high-speed CD burners, you could crank out CDs as fast as you could take someone's money anyways.
Consider my "human reading off the bits via telephone" example.
The human that's reading the bits is making a copy and transmitting it by reading them. This copy may be transitory, if no one's actually writing the bits down, or long lasting if the bits are recorded, but the initial duplication of the information is taking place on the transmitting end of things.
The very nature of copyright points to the transmission side of things. We don't have laws saying that you can only listen to (and thereby make a copy of from the air to your speaker) songs on the radio if you pay someone a royalty, The royalty is due on the transmission side of this.
This has all been established before for ANALOG electronics, and I don't see that using a digital encoding should change the law.
Damn, you're just ignorant and determined to remain that way. I imagine you have a lot to weep about since you apparently have less knowedge of american history than a typical fifth grader.
Because I find it the most reasonable number to assume. Especially for a street-driven sports car.
Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect.
Yes but their tires don't exactly last a long time, and the police wouldn't take too kindly to you doing burnouts at every single stoplight.
I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.
All this is correct, but a linear approximation of F=un is good enough for a "back of the envelope" calculation of what a normal street car can do.
I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this, because the simple fact is that you're trying justify an illegitimate action by saying that you're using it to stop another illegitimate action. This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have.
So you're saying Rosa Parks should have just quit riding the bus?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your viewpoint is just too damn simplistic. In order to make a reasonable judgement of the situation, you need to conceed that there ARE actually occasions when breaking the law is justified.
(And before you start making crazy assumptions: I used Rosa Parks as an example of the problems with your logic, not as an analogy for file traders.)
So now we're back to copyright GOOD? Close.... nutters in the music thing say "Copyright is... uh.. FLEXIBLE because.. I.. uh.. um... I don't want to pay the price that they ask, but I don't want to stop listening to their music... er.. no.. wait.. uh.. THE RIAA IS CHARGING TOO MUCH MONEY SO I'M HELPING TO DESTROY AN EVIL EMPIRE BY IGNORING COPYRIGHT LAW AND RIPPING OFF COPIES OF THEIR SONGS!!!!"
Okay here's how it works:
Copryright is a good thing when it is actually used to compensate artists for their creative works.
Copyright is a bad thing when it is abused and manipulated by corporate cartels, whom have no respect for the public good.
It's kinda like how guns are good when a cop needs to stop a criminal from doing something bad, but they are bad when they're beng used by organized crime.
The problem isn't the existence of guns/copyright, the problem is that certain groups have things they shouldn't have and use them in ways that are bad for everyone but themselves.
Geographic price discrimation is illegal? Then why is my milk in Arizona twice as expensive as milk in Indiana?
Perhaps I should have said geographic price fixing rather than discrimination. I think it's fairly obvious what I was saying. There's a legal diffence between artificial scarcity created by a corporate cartely and real scarcity.
That's it, your argument falls down straight away. You can't just make 2 assertions (however self-evident they seem to you) and draw a conclusion from them like that.
Well, I can (I just did), I just don't expect it to be taken very seriously. I mean it more as something to ponder for a minute or two than as something to do a thesis on. (Though I suppose you could).
Really, the reason I include those MUSTs is because a computer that violated either of those rules would be a logical pardox or a violation of the laws of physics.
Since a computer has to follow the same speed limit as the rest of the universe (3x10^9 m/s) there's no way it can change state faster than any given hunk of matter.
The other MUST arises less from physics and more from logic. How could a something "smaller" than something else hold an equivalent amount of information when the both must follow the same rules? Anything we "know" about the smaller object could also be known about the larger object, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
The parent is saying that you aren't "importing" a copy, because the copy is produced on your harddrive. He says that it is not "copied in Russia" and then delivered to you.
I think that is a reasonable argument.
I find it ridiculous.
I'm I'm the one making the copy, what the hell am I making it from?
Without them making a copy of the data in Russia and sending it to me (via postal service or the internet or reading the bits to me one by one over the phone) I have no information to use.
It's during the sending that to copying happens. Otherwise, either:
A) I don't get anything
or
B) They loose their copy
So your eclipse might not be able to do it, but an RX-7 like mine would be able to (my particular model would need some performance work first but a stock thrid gen would do nicely). A lightly-modded turbo Eclispe should also have no problem keeping up to 30 MPH.
In any case, my point was that the "acceleration" of this car isn't a stronger force than you could achieve with a decent car up to 20 or 30 MPH, it's just that the veyron is able to sustain 1G acceleration for longer.
The original post was acting as if this car was going to push you against the seat back harder then you've ever been pushed before.
A computer to fully simulate the actions of a given piece of mass, MUST be of equal size or larger than the mass it's trying to do a computer simulation of.
This computer MUST simulate the actions of this mass at the same speed or slower than the actions it's actually trying to simulate.
Wham! There's you upper bound on computing (at least for "full" simulations).... now all you need to do is figure out how much mass and time is available in the universe:)
Note: I'm not about to propose this in earnest to the scientific community. It's just a casual musing of mine. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcome.
This means that -- due to current (albiet wrong, IMO) interpretations of the law in the US -- they're all seperate copies of the same work. The leading case here is MAI v. Peak. I don't like it, but it's often followed, and it would hose you here.
There's no way this can be "often followed" because this would make all sorts of things illegal like:
Pretty much all *legal* internet radio
anti-skip buffers in CD players
running ANY software program without a supplemental EULA authorizing addition copies
The prevaling interpretation of copyright says that you get all the temporary copying rights necessary to run a program, play a digital music file, etc via the doctrine of first sale.
"since a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation."
That's not quite right, actually.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
....
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Now this part I don't buy for a minute. If Sid has legal rights to copy the album, then he has legal rights to copy the album. If I buy a legally produced copy of the album from Sid while on holiday in the UK, are you actually suggesting that's it's illegal for me to bring it back with me?
That's crazy.
I understand your example RE Moosylvania but in the case of Sid or this Russian site, the proper licensing bodies are being paid so the creation would have been legal under US law. (In the case of Moosylvania it would not have been.)
You interpretation is basically that the license under which Sid copies the work can enact arbitrary export limitations on the work. That does not make sense.
The only way what you're saying works is if by saying "this agreement does not give you the right to produce copies of the work in the US", copies that are not produced in the US, but imported into the US are considered "produced in the US" and therefore illegal. Obviously, they aren't. Therefore the copys were produced within the terms of a valid contract with the artist.
From a later post of yours: This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made.
Sure a copy is being made, that's why you're paying them but.... the copy is being made in Russia, by the people you are paying to do so, and is being done legally under Russian law. If this is illegal, buying a hardcopy of a CD from Russia is illegal as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, one could say the same about Open Source.
*ducks*
Well, one could, but it's like the difference between me giving you a car for free and a dealership selling you a car:
If, for example, the brakes turned out to be bad, I don't have to do shit about it. On the other hand, a dealer might actually be held responsible for fixing them.
The point is, there are typically different standards one is held to when giving something away for free vs. selling it.
(If I sell you something in a store for money, there is typically at least an implied warranty of merchantability.)
Can you trust him?
Can you trust Microsoft?
After all, they resfue to take on ANY legal liability for the security of your systems. If they intentionally shipped you broken software, what recourse do you think you have?
If this guy publishes real, verifiable contact information, I'd trust him, and I expect he does.
Of course, to me, asking if you can trust this guy is like asking if you can trust someone with the key to those shitty luggage locks they put on suitcases. If you gave a shit about security, you'd be using something else anyways.
Why, calling youself an "industry analyst" of course.
.....What, you expected a list of credentials?
Ideas are easy, deeds are difficult Which is why "intellectual property" is such a bullshit concept.
No. Not all ideas are easy.
Tell me, could you design a phased-array slotted waveguide radar antennta?
I thought not.
Could you take a ruler, measure one, make a few drawings and start selling your own? Probably.
"Intellectual property" is what makes sure that guy who can actually design the antenna gets paid.
Without patents, copyright, etc there's a lot less financial incentive for a company to do anything innovative.
Anyone can have good ideas, it's actually putting it into practice which is the difficult bit. Intellectual property implies that you can have an idea, patent it and then charge anyone who actually wants to put it into use. You should have to produce a *working* prototype for anything you want a patent on.
Well what if the guy is just a consultant working out of his house and he wants to sell the idea to someone else who actually has the facitites to build it? All you're proposing is yet another barrier for the small guys, for many of whom, the patent process is already too expensive.
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
Actually, what's funny/disturbing is that the inventors of the crossbow, machine gun, and atomic bomb (supposeldy) all said:
I have created a weapon so terrible it will end war!
(The implication being that casualty numbers would become unaccetable, and we would have to work our differences out peacefully.)
How wrong they were!
(Although one might argue that nuclear weapons actually prevented a WWIII between Russia and the US.)
Anyways, we have laws regarding crossbows, machineguns, and nuclear weapons, I don't see why we can't have a few more.
Of course what scares me the most is fscking with DNA. At no other time in human history has mankind had the capability to produce a self-replicating mistake.
You think nuclear weapns are bad? Imagine if they reproduced!
It's not as if a company with a market cap of of 13 BILLION dollars can just cash out and walk away from the table with 13 billion dollars.
Like is or not SUN, has to keep playing the game. It would loose even MORE money by trying to close up shop quickly.
A company has value for lots of reasons, besides pure, resellable assets: market position, reputation, etc.
What SUN needs is leadership like that which has helped Apple so much in recent years. If you look back far enough, you'll see a time when Apple was in quite a similar postion as SUN is today.
I'm not saying that SUN should start building sPods and sBooks. I think SUN needs to find its place in the market (hint: not the same place as Apple or Dell).
This is patently false. You only believe it to be true because you are obviously an imbecile. Your own quotation of my statement shows that your statement is patently false. MY viewpoint SPECIFICALLY STATES:
... are ... an ... idiot. I NEVER said that you should never break the law.
"This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have."
And I gave a specfic case where alternatives existed (Rosa Parks). It really shouldn't be this hard to understand.
You
While you got one thing right, you didn't say "you should never break the law". But you did say that you should never break the law when alternatives exist. Read your own quote of....yourself. (above)
YOU are not justified in YOUR action.
What action? I've never claimed to have made any.
You have NOTHING to do with Rosa Parks.
I didn't claim to. From my original post regarding Rosa Parks:
"(And before you start making crazy assumptions: I used Rosa Parks as an example of the problems with your logic, not as an analogy for file traders.)"
Reading comprehesion is not your strongpoint is it?
example
analogy
And, incidentally, if you don't like me insulting you, feel free to use your foes list. You have it for a reason.
I'm not worried about it. All it really does is make you look bad. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of someone who is loosing an arguement.
In a straight vertical drop you will be accelerating at G (9.8 m/s^2), and the g-force you will feel is zero (yes it may be slightly off due to wind resistance and such but you can assume zero).
Actually, you would feel 1 G of force it's just that you ALWAYS feel 1 G of force pulling you towards the center of the earth. You're used to it.
If this car can accelerate to 60 mph in 3 seconds its average horizontal g-force will be about 1G. So if we are traveling on a flat surface you will have 1G down (gravity), and 1G horizontal. Add the two together and you will end up with a max G of 1.4 at an angle of 45 degrees down from horizontal. In summary, accelerating in this car in a straight line your body will feel a max g of about 1.4, in a freefall vertical drop your body will feel 0G. So the poster was incorrect.
Actually, you still feel 1G of force in the horizontal direction, regardless of the vertical forces. Anyways, calling someone "wrong" using this explanation is crazy because in the case of freefall, you're saying that you can't feel the 1G of vertical force, yet in the case of the car, you're suddenly are able to feel it?
You're not listening now, ou weren't listening before, and I have no reason to believe you will listen in the future. Due to the fact that you have conveniently rejected my acknowledgements of the legitimacy of civil disobedience as if I had never made them
...because you haven't.
is so logically baseless that I can't even imagine what was going through your mind when you wrote it. Rosa Parks' actions prove nothing about my philosophy
Sure they do.
You said:
I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this, because the simple fact is that you're trying justify an illegitimate action by saying that you're using it to stop another illegitimate action. This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have.
Rosa could have just quit riding the bus instead of getting arrested, therefore another action was availible. Thus, your viewpoint says that Rosa should have behaved differently.
This is basic reading comprehension here.
A sensible person would back down and say, "Ok. So I guess it doesn't make sense unequivocally to say that you should never break the law when "other options" are availible. Situations should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
But of course, you aren't saying that. Instead, you're insulting me over the internet. Very impressive.
I wonder how long until car stereos start coming with a USB port which will, when a standard 'mass storage device' usb key is plugged into it, will treat it like a CD-R full of MP3s; play by directory, or play by playlist....
Me too.
If a decent company made one and it cost less than $500 (an easy price to hit), I would buy it in a heartbeat.
A boycott, dipshit. A boycott happened, not "rosa parks DID get up". Rather than misquoting me, perhaps you could have taken the time to read the text on the page of the goddamn link you posted:
..a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott..
And what is the text you're leaving out?
The rest of Parks' story is American history...her arrest and trial, a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and, finally, the Supreme Court's ruling in November 1956 that segregation on transportation is unconstitutional.
Why are you being so dense about this?
ROSA PARKS BROKE THE LAW. (And it was a good thing.)
IF ROSA PARKS HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BOYCOTT.
It's that simple. It's an easy example that proves why your philosophy of always working within the system arises from an oversimplistic view of the world.
Don't expect something that sounds like like "At Fillmore East" or "Live at Leeds." Feeds taken from a mixing console were intended to be routed to a PA system playing at ear-splitting volumes, not a 2 track master EQ'd for home listening. Making great-sounding live recordings in and of itself is quite an art form.
But the nice thing about board feeds is that the only drunken idiots you get on tape are the actual band memebers.
It doesn't mess up your recording if someone walks over to you and starts asking, "Hey! What's that?"
The only advantage I see for this is that the keychains could be reusable, but even then, the cost of a burned CD is practically negiliable assuming this service costs more than $1.
I suppose the only REAL advantage you get is that the flash devices could be gang programmed more quickly, but if you were running more than a half dozen or so high-speed CD burners, you could crank out CDs as fast as you could take someone's money anyways.
Consider my "human reading off the bits via telephone" example.
The human that's reading the bits is making a copy and transmitting it by reading them. This copy may be transitory, if no one's actually writing the bits down, or long lasting if the bits are recorded, but the initial duplication of the information is taking place on the transmitting end of things.
The very nature of copyright points to the transmission side of things. We don't have laws saying that you can only listen to (and thereby make a copy of from the air to your speaker) songs on the radio if you pay someone a royalty, The royalty is due on the transmission side of this.
This has all been established before for ANALOG electronics, and I don't see that using a digital encoding should change the law.
Uh.. that's exactly what happened.
LOL! Riiiighhht.
Rosa Parks never broke the law. [/sarcasm]
Damn, you're just ignorant and determined to remain that way. I imagine you have a lot to weep about since you apparently have less knowedge of american history than a typical fifth grader.
Why do you assume 1G of acceleration?
Because I find it the most reasonable number to assume. Especially for a street-driven sports car.
Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect.
Yes but their tires don't exactly last a long time, and the police wouldn't take too kindly to you doing burnouts at every single stoplight.
I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.
All this is correct, but a linear approximation of F=un is good enough for a "back of the envelope" calculation of what a normal street car can do.
I'm not going to continue arguing with you about this, because the simple fact is that you're trying justify an illegitimate action by saying that you're using it to stop another illegitimate action. This is acceptable behavior only when the illegitimate action in question is the only recourse you have.
So you're saying Rosa Parks should have just quit riding the bus?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your viewpoint is just too damn simplistic. In order to make a reasonable judgement of the situation, you need to conceed that there ARE actually occasions when breaking the law is justified.
(And before you start making crazy assumptions: I used Rosa Parks as an example of the problems with your logic, not as an analogy for file traders.)
Okay here's how it works:
It's kinda like how guns are good when a cop needs to stop a criminal from doing something bad, but they are bad when they're beng used by organized crime.
The problem isn't the existence of guns/copyright, the problem is that certain groups have things they shouldn't have and use them in ways that are bad for everyone but themselves.
Geographic price discrimation is illegal? Then why is my milk in Arizona twice as expensive as milk in Indiana?
Perhaps I should have said geographic price fixing rather than discrimination. I think it's fairly obvious what I was saying. There's a legal diffence between artificial scarcity created by a corporate cartely and real scarcity.
It's about supply and demand...
Not when a cartel is involed.
That's it, your argument falls down straight away. You can't just make 2 assertions (however self-evident they seem to you) and draw a conclusion from them like that. Well, I can (I just did), I just don't expect it to be taken very seriously. I mean it more as something to ponder for a minute or two than as something to do a thesis on. (Though I suppose you could).
Really, the reason I include those MUSTs is because a computer that violated either of those rules would be a logical pardox or a violation of the laws of physics.
Since a computer has to follow the same speed limit as the rest of the universe (3x10^9 m/s) there's no way it can change state faster than any given hunk of matter.
The other MUST arises less from physics and more from logic. How could a something "smaller" than something else hold an equivalent amount of information when the both must follow the same rules? Anything we "know" about the smaller object could also be known about the larger object, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
The parent is saying that you aren't "importing" a copy, because the copy is produced on your harddrive. He says that it is not "copied in Russia" and then delivered to you. I think that is a reasonable argument.
I find it ridiculous.
I'm I'm the one making the copy, what the hell am I making it from?
Without them making a copy of the data in Russia and sending it to me (via postal service or the internet or reading the bits to me one by one over the phone) I have no information to use.
It's during the sending that to copying happens. Otherwise, either:
A) I don't get anything
or
B) They loose their copy
So your eclipse might not be able to do it, but an RX-7 like mine would be able to (my particular model would need some performance work first but a stock thrid gen would do nicely). A lightly-modded turbo Eclispe should also have no problem keeping up to 30 MPH.
In any case, my point was that the "acceleration" of this car isn't a stronger force than you could achieve with a decent car up to 20 or 30 MPH, it's just that the veyron is able to sustain 1G acceleration for longer.
The original post was acting as if this car was going to push you against the seat back harder then you've ever been pushed before.
Wham! There's you upper bound on computing (at least for "full" simulations).... now all you need to do is figure out how much mass and time is available in the universe
Note: I'm not about to propose this in earnest to the scientific community. It's just a casual musing of mine. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is welcome.
There's no way this can be "often followed" because this would make all sorts of things illegal like:
The prevaling interpretation of copyright says that you get all the temporary copying rights necessary to run a program, play a digital music file, etc via the doctrine of first sale.
"since a song has been legally marketed & sold, then the copyright owner loses most rights over resale/reimportation."
....
That's not quite right, actually.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
First sale deals with specific copies. The copies need to have been made in a manner that would be legal if they were made in the US, regardless of the legality under foreign law.
So if Perry Como makes a punk rock record and sells it, anyone can then turn around and resell it. If he sold it in the UK, then you can import it into the US, no problem.
Likewise, if Perry sold his rights in the UK to his close friend Sid Vicious, and Sid was the one making copies in the UK, you couldn't -- as a matter of first sale -- import those copies into the US. There is a good reason for that.
Now this part I don't buy for a minute. If Sid has legal rights to copy the album, then he has legal rights to copy the album. If I buy a legally produced copy of the album from Sid while on holiday in the UK, are you actually suggesting that's it's illegal for me to bring it back with me?
That's crazy.
I understand your example RE Moosylvania but in the case of Sid or this Russian site, the proper licensing bodies are being paid so the creation would have been legal under US law. (In the case of Moosylvania it would not have been.)
You interpretation is basically that the license under which Sid copies the work can enact arbitrary export limitations on the work. That does not make sense.
The only way what you're saying works is if by saying "this agreement does not give you the right to produce copies of the work in the US", copies that are not produced in the US, but imported into the US are considered "produced in the US" and therefore illegal. Obviously, they aren't. Therefore the copys were produced within the terms of a valid contract with the artist.
From a later post of yours:
This involves a copy made HERE, itself based on a copy in Russia. When you download something, the bits on the server aren't magically sent to you -- instead a new copy is made.
Sure a copy is being made, that's why you're paying them but.... the copy is being made in Russia, by the people you are paying to do so, and is being done legally under Russian law. If this is illegal, buying a hardcopy of a CD from Russia is illegal as well.