a : passage of a celestial body over the meridian of a place or through the field of a telescope
b : passage of a smaller body (as Venus) across the disk of a larger (as the sun)
Does one of the above apply?
If that happens, we will have to let all who can't afford to breathe air die. It is basic economics.
We have to? Says who? The people who can't afford food today are fed by systems such as welfare. How can you explain that people are kept alive today who couldn't afford to do so by themselves if it's "basic economics" that people that can't afford necessities have to die?
No, I am looking at market value and real value using basic economic theory. If something can be infinitely reproduced at a near zero cost, then it has a near zero market value.
So, if something has a "near zero market value", then, simply because you can, illegally in this case, obtain it then that is the only consideration as to how much you should pay for it. So, I suppose you'd say that if you could steal something by murdering someone the only consideration should be if it would be effectively cheaper to do so then to buy it.
As for the real value of things. Any prosperous society wants lots of stuff with low market value and high real value. That is how things becomes better for everyday people. Copyright and other intellectual property laws aims for the opposite, namely to bring market value as close to real value as possible.
A society having "a lot of stuff" isn't the opposite of having copyright law. I don't see it as a probable outcome that abolishing copyright and intellectual property laws or ignoring them by copying things anyway will end up with society having more stuff then it would otherwise. Without copyright law, people can only produce works for free. With copyright law, people can produce works for free, and can produce works for a cost. So, without copyright law, we only get the products people produce for free. Whereas, with copyright law, we get two types of products, those that cost money, *and* free works. To me, that sounds like "more stuff".
You're comparing downloading movies to breathing air. Don't you think see any difference between the two? Actually, breathable air might actually become scarce due to population explosion or the ruining of the environment. Or do you beliieve that if/when that happens we should let all who could not afford to breathe air die? Because if you are only looking at value multiplied by scarcity to determine the value of something, that would be right.
If you enjoyed the content, it obviously is at least somewhat valuable to you. Maybe not the purchase price, but I don't believe you can plausibly say that the content was worth nothing (for most content at least).
If you want to argue on the basis of morals then I imagine most people would agree that violating a (sane) copyright is wrong. When you start talking about 120-year old copyrights or trying to prevent what most feel is fair use then people will start to disagree.
If you are downloading 120 year old content, then sure. But if you downloading something that would fall under sane copyright law, how does that excuse you?
Isn't the idea to hit a ton of servers, hoping to get into one? First, I don't get the 525,960 attacks per year at one a second: 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 = 31,536,000
Anyway, from the black hat perspective, let's say a half a server a month cracked would be enough for it to be worthwhile. Then at one month, at one hit a second per server, that would be 2,592,000 tries. So lets say that you had two English words and a number, 292,410,000,000 tries. Then to get a 50 % chance of cracking one of the servers in a month, they'd need to know the ip address of log(.5)/(log((292410000000-1)-log(292410000000)) / 2592000 = 78163.5 machines. So if they have a bot net, and can search for an open port 22 until they have 78163 machines, (and one additional one that's up an average of half the time), and start brute forcing away.
So, yes, you'd be unlikely to be the one that got cracked in those 78163.5 machines, but it is possible, and it is fruitful to attack in this way, even if everyone had a pretty good password.
And, the longer you have your server running, the greater the risk is.
It would save a lot of people grief if you just email the editors directly about the issues you have with a story. If they refuse to respond, they're not going to care if you address them in the comments of the story either.
By putting your gripes here you're just adding noise.
Sorry dude. I meant to rate this as funny but I accidentally hit overrated, so this reply will undo what I've done.
So please accept this personal review of your comment. It is a quick witted humorous note.
"...we must ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy."
Yar, mateys... hoist the sails and get the cannons ready. A cargo ship containing 50,000 copies of High School Musical 3 is due to cross our path in a half hours time.
The problem is that a lot of it *is* wasted. If the government uses its income to perform tasks or buy goods or services that are useful to no one, it has occupied the time of the people that performed it and the materials used whereas that effort could have been used to perform something useful.
This equals less *real* goods and services available to the people, and therefore less trade.
There isn't much difference between someone working for the government to create something useless and someone living off of the government's dole.
There was an invention awhile back.. it's very popular, perhaps you have heard of it. It's called a "bank". A "bank" allows you to deposit your money, and they loan it out to other people to spend on goods and services.
I don't understand all the cries of hypocrisy over this.
Lars downloaded his album because, he said, to verify that it was actually available. Regardless of whether his argument against filesharing is right or not, does this really make him a hypocrite?
FTFA "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."
At least the people in the village are developing resistance to cancer causing chemicals and lead poisoning at an accelerated rate... good for them, I guess.
And maybe in the future we can harvest their genes to develop a cure for cancer.
To read more on this subject, see the text referencing "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", particularly the section regarding the Golgafrinchan civilization.
Vietnamese has something similar to that. Pronouns for "you" and "I" are rarely used. Instead, pronouns are specific to how old you are, your relation to the other person, etc. So for example, if a mother says to a child to go to the market, she would say "Con di cho", or "Child go to the market". If the child were to say to the mother he or she was going to the market, the child would also say "Con di cho".
I think it makes native Vietnamese speakers a lot more connected to each other. It also creates more respect for elders, since they always are referred to by a different title then younger people.
If it takes 1.2 billion third worlders working 12 hours a day in the cheapest of conditions to support our standard of living, what makes you think that we could support the same standard of living off of 300 million Americans working 8 hours a day and taking every other Monday and Friday off?
We could:
1. create a mini-world economy, where we have a mini third-worldish American population working in the same conditions as the real third worlders, supporting a mini-regular America population, who live as we do today, or
2. some other more politically correct arraignment where there are a lot more people that are poor, but not third-world poor, and a lot fewer people are rich.
Either way, the mean standard of living goes way down.
Except that it's not the defendants choice as to what the plaintiff will choose. So:
If the plaintiff would go to court if the defendant offered $1, and would not if the defendant offered $300, and
the plaintiff won (with a judgment greater than $1), and
the total amount the defendant had to pay (judgment + legal fees) was greater than $300
then the defendant would lose.
You may think the difference between $1 and $300 is trivial to the RIAA, but since being awarded $1 may be perceived as losing the case by the general public, whereas being awarded $300 may not be, it might have had a bearing on whether the RIAA accepted the offer. The RIAA is concerned with their image after all. If they start losing a bunch of cases, more people would try to fight them, costing them more money in the end.
I think you're being overly idealistic. If the price of trees are reduced enough, you are going to have a hard time convincing the owners of the forest land to not use it for something else which makes them more money if they can. I doubt that a legislative approach is going to work either, since you won't be able to legislate other countries besides the U.S. even if you were to succeed here.
The point is that either consuming paper has a net-negative or a net-positive impact on the environment. I believe that because of the extra trees needed to produce the paper, it's a net positive, and because so, the more paper you use, that better it will be for the environment.
Why don't you think a single thing can't have a good effect? Explain to me why the statement "If we use more tree products, then the number of tree's grown must increase" is not true.
Just like if American's start eating even more french fries, than the number of potatos grown must also increase.
If we recycle more, then tree products are used less, tree's become less valuable, and the land containing forests for the production of paper are increasingly used for something else, such as shopping malls or urban sprawl.
Why not do both? Why waste time, money, and energy recycling if you are actually causing more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere by doing so?
Slashdot Mirror
This is what I got from m-w.com:
a : passage of a celestial body over the meridian of a place or through the field of a telescope
b : passage of a smaller body (as Venus) across the disk of a larger (as the sun) Does one of the above apply?
If that happens, we will have to let all who can't afford to breathe air die. It is basic economics.
We have to? Says who? The people who can't afford food today are fed by systems such as welfare. How can you explain that people are kept alive today who couldn't afford to do so by themselves if it's "basic economics" that people that can't afford necessities have to die?
No, I am looking at market value and real value using basic economic theory. If something can be infinitely reproduced at a near zero cost, then it has a near zero market value.
So, if something has a "near zero market value", then, simply because you can, illegally in this case, obtain it then that is the only consideration as to how much you should pay for it. So, I suppose you'd say that if you could steal something by murdering someone the only consideration should be if it would be effectively cheaper to do so then to buy it.
As for the real value of things. Any prosperous society wants lots of stuff with low market value and high real value. That is how things becomes better for everyday people. Copyright and other intellectual property laws aims for the opposite, namely to bring market value as close to real value as possible.
A society having "a lot of stuff" isn't the opposite of having copyright law. I don't see it as a probable outcome that abolishing copyright and intellectual property laws or ignoring them by copying things anyway will end up with society having more stuff then it would otherwise. Without copyright law, people can only produce works for free. With copyright law, people can produce works for free, and can produce works for a cost. So, without copyright law, we only get the products people produce for free. Whereas, with copyright law, we get two types of products, those that cost money, *and* free works. To me, that sounds like "more stuff".
You're comparing downloading movies to breathing air. Don't you think see any difference between the two? Actually, breathable air might actually become scarce due to population explosion or the ruining of the environment. Or do you beliieve that if/when that happens we should let all who could not afford to breathe air die? Because if you are only looking at value multiplied by scarcity to determine the value of something, that would be right.
If you enjoyed the content, it obviously is at least somewhat valuable to you. Maybe not the purchase price, but I don't believe you can plausibly say that the content was worth nothing (for most content at least).
If you want to argue on the basis of morals then I imagine most people would agree that violating a (sane) copyright is wrong. When you start talking about 120-year old copyrights or trying to prevent what most feel is fair use then people will start to disagree.
If you are downloading 120 year old content, then sure. But if you downloading something that would fall under sane copyright law, how does that excuse you?
Isn't the idea to hit a ton of servers, hoping to get into one? First, I don't get the 525,960 attacks per year at one a second: 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 = 31,536,000
Anyway, from the black hat perspective, let's say a half a server a month cracked would be enough for it to be worthwhile. Then at one month, at one hit a second per server, that would be 2,592,000 tries. So lets say that you had two English words and a number, 292,410,000,000 tries. Then to get a 50 % chance of cracking one of the servers in a month, they'd need to know the ip address of log(.5)/(log((292410000000-1)-log(292410000000)) / 2592000 = 78163.5 machines. So if they have a bot net, and can search for an open port 22 until they have 78163 machines, (and one additional one that's up an average of half the time), and start brute forcing away.
So, yes, you'd be unlikely to be the one that got cracked in those 78163.5 machines, but it is possible, and it is fruitful to attack in this way, even if everyone had a pretty good password. And, the longer you have your server running, the greater the risk is.
How about a toilet that when it detects shit it tells you it's time to wipe?
By putting your gripes here you're just adding noise.
How is coercion easy for walk in voting when no one but the person voting can definitely know who the person voted for?
When voting online, someone could be standing over your shoulder making sure you are voting for who they want you to vote for.
Legend! http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
Sorry dude. I meant to rate this as funny but I accidentally hit overrated, so this reply will undo what I've done. So please accept this personal review of your comment. It is a quick witted humorous note.
"...we must ensure that all copyrighted works, both here and abroad, are protected from online theft and traditional physical piracy."
Yar, mateys... hoist the sails and get the cannons ready. A cargo ship containing 50,000 copies of High School Musical 3 is due to cross our path in a half hours time.
The problem is that a lot of it *is* wasted. If the government uses its income to perform tasks or buy goods or services that are useful to no one, it has occupied the time of the people that performed it and the materials used whereas that effort could have been used to perform something useful.
This equals less *real* goods and services available to the people, and therefore less trade.
There isn't much difference between someone working for the government to create something useless and someone living off of the government's dole.
There was an invention awhile back.. it's very popular, perhaps you have heard of it. It's called a "bank". A "bank" allows you to deposit your money, and they loan it out to other people to spend on goods and services.
I don't understand all the cries of hypocrisy over this.
Lars downloaded his album because, he said, to verify that it was actually available. Regardless of whether his argument against filesharing is right or not, does this really make him a hypocrite?
FTFA "The projectile may be detected in the detecting step by emitting an electromagnetic wave from a projectile detector and receiving the electromagnetic wave after the electromagnetic wave has been reflected back toward the projectile detector by the projectile."
At least the people in the village are developing resistance to cancer causing chemicals and lead poisoning at an accelerated rate... good for them, I guess. And maybe in the future we can harvest their genes to develop a cure for cancer.
To read more on this subject, see the text referencing "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", particularly the section regarding the Golgafrinchan civilization.
I think it makes native Vietnamese speakers a lot more connected to each other. It also creates more respect for elders, since they always are referred to by a different title then younger people.
We just need a little old lady exception clause, and we're fine
We could:
1. create a mini-world economy, where we have a mini third-worldish American population working in the same conditions as the real third worlders, supporting a mini-regular America population, who live as we do today, or
2. some other more politically correct arraignment where there are a lot more people that are poor, but not third-world poor, and a lot fewer people are rich.
Either way, the mean standard of living goes way down.
- If the plaintiff would go to court if the defendant offered $1, and would not if the defendant offered $300, and
- the plaintiff won (with a judgment greater than $1), and
- the total amount the defendant had to pay (judgment + legal fees) was greater than $300
then the defendant would lose.You may think the difference between $1 and $300 is trivial to the RIAA, but since being awarded $1 may be perceived as losing the case by the general public, whereas being awarded $300 may not be, it might have had a bearing on whether the RIAA accepted the offer. The RIAA is concerned with their image after all. If they start losing a bunch of cases, more people would try to fight them, costing them more money in the end.
Oh geez, then. What about talk radio? That _never_ stops talking, even if the driver yells "Oh my God, we're all going to die!"
I think you're being overly idealistic. If the price of trees are reduced enough, you are going to have a hard time convincing the owners of the forest land to not use it for something else which makes them more money if they can. I doubt that a legislative approach is going to work either, since you won't be able to legislate other countries besides the U.S. even if you were to succeed here.
The point is that either consuming paper has a net-negative or a net-positive impact on the environment. I believe that because of the extra trees needed to produce the paper, it's a net positive, and because so, the more paper you use, that better it will be for the environment.
Just like if American's start eating even more french fries, than the number of potatos grown must also increase.
If we recycle more, then tree products are used less, tree's become less valuable, and the land containing forests for the production of paper are increasingly used for something else, such as shopping malls or urban sprawl.
Why not do both? Why waste time, money, and energy recycling if you are actually causing more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere by doing so?