Wow, this is one of those rare times when my past military experience lets me understand what someone is talking about.
No offense but then again the civilian side isn't very well known for it either, unless of course you are talking about nit-pick job descriptions and contract agreements (not my job) and making sure they get all their breaks and overtime.
Charcharodon is refering to civilians who work for the Government. They are ultra picky about "job descriptions" and will not perform any task, no matter how simple and/or critical, that isn't explicitly listed in their job description. The civilians who don't work for the government are generally nothing like that, unless its a union job.
Ok, explain to me how you can just receive physical pain from a bully without any pstchological pain. The whole point of them hurting you is psychological. They are demonstraiting that you are so weak and pathetic that you don't even control your own body. That's why bullies particulary enjoy things like grabbing your arm and forcing you to punch your own face while saying "quit hitting yourself", or pinning your arms to the ground under thier legs and using one finger to poke you in the chest repeatedly. It's ALL psychological, the physical aspects are just to prove their assertions of your inferiority in a way that you can't deny or ignore.
What is up with this "begs the question" thing? I mean, I know (and use) the 'correct' use of the phase, but the 'incorrect' use is more logical. The formal logic term should be "assumes the conclusion" or somthing similar, because there is no 'begging' going on. However, in the 'inccorrect' usage the statement or or situation does (metaphorically) 'urgently plea' for "the question" to be asked (satisfying one of the dictionary definitions of "beg").
Some people are arguing that, but that arguement is a reaction to the MPAA claim that you aren't buying the DVD, you are licencing the content. What I and most other people are aguing is that you can make you own backup copies of your can opener, so why should DVD's be any different?
Well it's a little confused. Most people are saying that if they buy a DVD and it becomes unplayable they shouldn't have to buy a new one because they can make a backup from their own materials. Thus my "make your own can opener" analogy. If you are too lazy to make the backup before it breaks, that's too bad for you, you'll have to buy a new one.
A few people are arguing that media companies are claiming you are buying a licence to view the material, and therefore the media companies should have to send you a new copy (at the cost of the physical medium). I don't particularly like or support this notion. The analogy would then have to be changed to the can opener company selling you "the ability to open cans" and not the physical can opener.
This is part of why I don't like the "you buy the right to view the movie not the physical disk" aguments, its just too darn wierd. I didn't buy the rights to view a movie, I bought a physical disk with a specific patern of molecules on the surface. The reason I bought it was I was promised that the patern of molecules would cause a movie to appear on my TV set when I put that disk in the player.
I still think I should have the right to examine that pattern and use my own materials to make the same pattern (or a similar, or analogous, pattern).
When you copy a DVD, you suppy the actual disk (or hard drive or whatever the data is stored on) so the correct analogy would be to buy a can opener, carefully photograph all the parts of it, and then use the photos to build your own replacement can opener from your own metal/plastic/whatever. I suppose this could violate patent if it was a patented can opener, but generally it would be legal.
This is exactly the problem.
The notion that theft is acquiring something without "right or permission" is wrong. It is the removal of property from another that makes it theft and immoral. Getting something for free (without depriving others) is a good thing.
All of human progress has been driven by the desire to get more for less. The logical conclusion of human progress is to get everything for nothing. Sharing information is the one area where we are finally approaching that goal, but IP legislation is artificially holding us back.
NO NO NO!
I hate coins! I wish they would phase ALL coins out (and maybe issue $0.25 bills). Bills fold up nicely and fit into my wallet. Coins make a big, heavy, bulky, noisy lump in my pocket and make it hard to get my keys out without accidentally dumping a bunch of coins on the ground.
I've done some experiments and discovered that clothes actually disappear in the WASHER, not the dryer like everyone thinks. This is the main thing that is holding up missing sock research. Once the mainstream scientific community accepts my unorthodox washer theories, I'm sure rapid advances in our understanding of how clothes disappear will follow quickly.
Personally I am a big advocate of the Spontanious Conversion to Lint thoery (how else do you explain where all the lint comes from? I certainly don't put a big wad of lint in my laundry) but I admit that the dimentional portal theories have some merit. Clearly there is much more research to be done.
It's not the copyright that is the issue here. When you order a PPV movie, the cable company says "We'll send you a copy of the movie if you give us $4.95 (or whatever)." The user says ok to this, but then tries to not pay up.
On P2P, some random guy offers you a copy of a movie for free. The copyright holder is not (directly) involved in either of these situations.
The equivalent "crime" in filesharing would be if someone IM'ed you and said "send me five bucks and I'll send you a copy of (whatever MP3)," and you say "sure," mail a bad check, and receive the file anyway.
So the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the copyright holder, they do care about individuals not holding up their end of personal agreements.
Um, they don't build workplaces near residential areas so we don't really have much choice. I suppose that is indirectly our (the public's) fault since we don't like living near large crowded buildings, but living without lots of wide open spaces would be horribly uncomfortable. I don't even see how people can stand to live in suburbs with only a quarter-acre of land per house. Living in a dense, urban city would be unthinkable.
I have to strongly disagree with your disagreement. Following the law instead of your concience is one of the MAJOR problems with our society. The only thing truely legitamizing laws is the legal system itself. Irresonsibly following all laws just lends more legitamacy to this rule of law system.
There should be subjective calls and disagreements between people. When they can't be resolved, an unbiased judge will be needed to sort them out.
I understand why, historically, laws were seen as necessary, as without them, people could widely abuse subjectivity to excuse anything. It also provides a more predictable framework for knowing the consequences of your actions when you might find yourself in front of a judge.
I suppose a system of laws may be the lesser of two evils here, but I reject outright that laws should always be followed, in all cases, even when you strongly disagree with them.
But why do you need an Apollo command module and service module? The original posters idea was to fly the shuttle itself into lunar orbit. What do the Apollo command and service modules have that the shuttle doesn't? It seems you just need a lunar module (I doubt the shuttle could land on the moon) and lots of extra fuel. I imagine docking a big fuel tank (or multiple tanks) previously lauched into low earth orbit to the shuttle's main engines (connected to where the external tank was?) and a LEM in the shuttle's cargo bay.
Now maybe the shuttle's main engines can't output enough to accelerate the whole thing to the moon, I really don't know how much is needed or what would limit them from just doing a longer burn until they have enough velocity.
Of course, that's still a massive undertaking, just slighlty less massive than yours.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I would love to play a game that simulates the real experience of Army life (I am an Army veteran myself). I imagine something like The Sims, you have to devote time to making your bunk, shining your boots, cleaning up your locker, cleaning the latrine, waxing the floor etc; and still make it to the morning PT formation on time. Or maybe a point and click adventure game where you try to get all the correct authorities to sign the paperwork you need (but the all won't sign it until you do favors for them or bribe them with something they can't get themselves but your job gives you access to). It would be great fun! Uh but I guess not much of a recruiting tool.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, this is one of those rare times when my past military experience lets me understand what someone is talking about.
No offense but then again the civilian side isn't very well known for it either, unless of course you are talking about nit-pick job descriptions and contract agreements (not my job) and making sure they get all their breaks and overtime.
Charcharodon is refering to civilians who work for the Government. They are ultra picky about "job descriptions" and will not perform any task, no matter how simple and/or critical, that isn't explicitly listed in their job description. The civilians who don't work for the government are generally nothing like that, unless its a union job.
These articles get posted because someone wants to enflame the rage of all the illegal file swappers against the RIAA.
So maybe everyone will get mad and lobby to change the law as you suggest?
There are an awful lot of people who seem to think that if they don't like the law, they'll just ignore it.
Well that is the world I want to live in, where people responsively use their judgement to decide right and wrong instead of blindly following laws.
Well, maybe they should've lobbied to get the law changed before breaking it!
We never wanted laws like this in the first place and we've been ranting and raving about it for years now. Nobody in congress seems to care.
And if you don't like it, follow the law or change it.
Thats just downright irresponsible. You can't just follow all the laws you disagree with, that would just legitamize them.
Ok, explain to me how you can just receive physical pain from a bully without any pstchological pain. The whole point of them hurting you is psychological. They are demonstraiting that you are so weak and pathetic that you don't even control your own body. That's why bullies particulary enjoy things like grabbing your arm and forcing you to punch your own face while saying "quit hitting yourself", or pinning your arms to the ground under thier legs and using one finger to poke you in the chest repeatedly. It's ALL psychological, the physical aspects are just to prove their assertions of your inferiority in a way that you can't deny or ignore.
What is up with this "begs the question" thing? I mean, I know (and use) the 'correct' use of the phase, but the 'incorrect' use is more logical. The formal logic term should be "assumes the conclusion" or somthing similar, because there is no 'begging' going on. However, in the 'inccorrect' usage the statement or or situation does (metaphorically) 'urgently plea' for "the question" to be asked (satisfying one of the dictionary definitions of "beg").
Household heating is usually done with natural gas. Air conditioning is all electrical. Everything else is peanuts.
Some people are arguing that, but that arguement is a reaction to the MPAA claim that you aren't buying the DVD, you are licencing the content. What I and most other people are aguing is that you can make you own backup copies of your can opener, so why should DVD's be any different?
Well it's a little confused. Most people are saying that if they buy a DVD and it becomes unplayable they shouldn't have to buy a new one because they can make a backup from their own materials. Thus my "make your own can opener" analogy. If you are too lazy to make the backup before it breaks, that's too bad for you, you'll have to buy a new one.
A few people are arguing that media companies are claiming you are buying a licence to view the material, and therefore the media companies should have to send you a new copy (at the cost of the physical medium). I don't particularly like or support this notion. The analogy would then have to be changed to the can opener company selling you "the ability to open cans" and not the physical can opener.
This is part of why I don't like the "you buy the right to view the movie not the physical disk" aguments, its just too darn wierd. I didn't buy the rights to view a movie, I bought a physical disk with a specific patern of molecules on the surface. The reason I bought it was I was promised that the patern of molecules would cause a movie to appear on my TV set when I put that disk in the player.
I still think I should have the right to examine that pattern and use my own materials to make the same pattern (or a similar, or analogous, pattern).
When you copy a DVD, you suppy the actual disk (or hard drive or whatever the data is stored on) so the correct analogy would be to buy a can opener, carefully photograph all the parts of it, and then use the photos to build your own replacement can opener from your own metal/plastic/whatever. I suppose this could violate patent if it was a patented can opener, but generally it would be legal.
This is exactly the problem. The notion that theft is acquiring something without "right or permission" is wrong. It is the removal of property from another that makes it theft and immoral. Getting something for free (without depriving others) is a good thing.
All of human progress has been driven by the desire to get more for less. The logical conclusion of human progress is to get everything for nothing. Sharing information is the one area where we are finally approaching that goal, but IP legislation is artificially holding us back.
NO NO NO! I hate coins! I wish they would phase ALL coins out (and maybe issue $0.25 bills). Bills fold up nicely and fit into my wallet. Coins make a big, heavy, bulky, noisy lump in my pocket and make it hard to get my keys out without accidentally dumping a bunch of coins on the ground.
Personally I am a big advocate of the Spontanious Conversion to Lint thoery (how else do you explain where all the lint comes from? I certainly don't put a big wad of lint in my laundry) but I admit that the dimentional portal theories have some merit. Clearly there is much more research to be done.
It's not the copyright that is the issue here. When you order a PPV movie, the cable company says "We'll send you a copy of the movie if you give us $4.95 (or whatever)." The user says ok to this, but then tries to not pay up. On P2P, some random guy offers you a copy of a movie for free. The copyright holder is not (directly) involved in either of these situations. The equivalent "crime" in filesharing would be if someone IM'ed you and said "send me five bucks and I'll send you a copy of (whatever MP3)," and you say "sure," mail a bad check, and receive the file anyway. So the Slashdot crowd doesn't care about the copyright holder, they do care about individuals not holding up their end of personal agreements.
Um, they don't build workplaces near residential areas so we don't really have much choice. I suppose that is indirectly our (the public's) fault since we don't like living near large crowded buildings, but living without lots of wide open spaces would be horribly uncomfortable. I don't even see how people can stand to live in suburbs with only a quarter-acre of land per house. Living in a dense, urban city would be unthinkable.
I have to strongly disagree with your disagreement. Following the law instead of your concience is one of the MAJOR problems with our society. The only thing truely legitamizing laws is the legal system itself. Irresonsibly following all laws just lends more legitamacy to this rule of law system.
There should be subjective calls and disagreements between people. When they can't be resolved, an unbiased judge will be needed to sort them out.
I understand why, historically, laws were seen as necessary, as without them, people could widely abuse subjectivity to excuse anything. It also provides a more predictable framework for knowing the consequences of your actions when you might find yourself in front of a judge.
I suppose a system of laws may be the lesser of two evils here, but I reject outright that laws should always be followed, in all cases, even when you strongly disagree with them.
But why do you need an Apollo command module and service module? The original posters idea was to fly the shuttle itself into lunar orbit. What do the Apollo command and service modules have that the shuttle doesn't? It seems you just need a lunar module (I doubt the shuttle could land on the moon) and lots of extra fuel. I imagine docking a big fuel tank (or multiple tanks) previously lauched into low earth orbit to the shuttle's main engines (connected to where the external tank was?) and a LEM in the shuttle's cargo bay.
Now maybe the shuttle's main engines can't output enough to accelerate the whole thing to the moon, I really don't know how much is needed or what would limit them from just doing a longer burn until they have enough velocity.
Of course, that's still a massive undertaking, just slighlty less massive than yours.Maybe I'm the only one, but I would love to play a game that simulates the real experience of Army life (I am an Army veteran myself). I imagine something like The Sims, you have to devote time to making your bunk, shining your boots, cleaning up your locker, cleaning the latrine, waxing the floor etc; and still make it to the morning PT formation on time. Or maybe a point and click adventure game where you try to get all the correct authorities to sign the paperwork you need (but the all won't sign it until you do favors for them or bribe them with something they can't get themselves but your job gives you access to). It would be great fun! Uh but I guess not much of a recruiting tool.