not true, even the speed of light can be broken, i.e.:
wormholes
Are you implying that this web browser somehow employes worm holes to increase our browsing speed? Who wouldn't want to see the code for that?
Yes. It does. Not in the cases mentioned because they were immensely popular but in other less popular cases creations will be lost before they clear copyright leaving us that much poorer culturally.
In that case, if the idea/creation dissapears then it's free to be used in the future. I'm not arguing for a never-ending copyright, but intellectual property seems to be highly undervalued on slashdot.
Elvis is dead. It makes no sense to continually pay his heirs for his creations. He and his creations are now a part of history. His heirs din't create these songs. He did. (Aren't Elvis's songs commercialistic in nature with their connection to Graceland?)
No he's not!! just kidding, I was just picking an artist from the parent post, but my point was that when we work, whether it be on something physical or mental, we're trying to secure a living for ourselves and those close to us. If I want part of that to goto my decendants why shouldn't I? What if the created artwork doesn't become famous until after the person is dead, should all the profit just go back to the public? If the artist originally created the work to secure their family, but it just didn't work out in their lifetime, why should it be denied later? I do have some stake in the game, the more successful my decendants are, the more likely my genes are going to be passed to the next generation, the more likely my decendants are to be successful, and so on. (on a side note I wasn't suggesting that Elvis wasn't into commercialism, I was just posing an 'what if').
Most of us have to work for a living. We work each day for each day's pay. We don't get residuals from previous day's work. Why should an artist continue getting paid for one day's (or even one year's) work for the next 100 years?
There are differnt ways to earn a living, and being an artist holds a lot of risk, just as for example, building a business from scratch. If a entrepeneur has an idea for a product, then creates a company based off that product, when that person dies, they can leave the company to their decendants (effectively securing their well being). If you make a living from manual labor that is entirly different from making your living off of a creation. Apples and Oranges.
Absolutely not. That is simply robbing future generations of their culture and history. Elvis, Buddy Holly, I Love Lucy, Steamboat Willie. These things are beyond supporting their creators and have entered the realm of of US history and culture.
So you're saying that the future generations own any created work by default? If the person that came up with the idea never introduced it to the public in the first place, then the public wouldn't even know they already own it! Not to mention that the copyright holder retaining the copyright doesn't remove the idea from the public, it just places a few constraints on it's use.
The public still gets to hear Elvis, Buddy Holly ect. whether there's a copyright on them or not. If I'm going to cover an Elvis song it just makes sense that I need to pay Elvis's estate to do so. What happens to Graceland once the copyrights end? Without copyrights Elvis' music could be used for commercials even if he campaigned against commercialism while alive.
Are you kidding? Copyright isn't there to reward artists, though that is becoming a very common misconception. It's there to entice artists to create works. It should only be long enough to do that. Obviously Steamboat Willy was already created.... lengthening the copyright to 95 years doesn't make more works for the public domain, it creates fewer because the companies can keep milking the same stories and characters.
Yes, god forbid someone who has a good idea actually get compensated for their time, effort and ingenuity. It's just words anyway! Words are free! Yay! Give me your words, and I'll give you as little as possible for them, just enough for you to make more.
Where's the logic?
The logic exists from the perspective of the person that created the work. They didn't create it for you, they created it for themselves, is that selfish? They don't owe you anything.
No, it's like building a house on public lands with public funds, with the express understanding that after those 95 years pass, you have to give the house back to the public. Then, when you've enjoyed the benefits of the agreement, and it comes time to pay, you then cry "Foul!", and try to get the law changed so that you don't have to live up to your side of the bargain.
How does the analogy of public funds fit in? If I sit down with a guitar and my voice and create a song, record the song and distribute it myself. Where does this public land and funds come from? Even though I recorded and distributed it myself I still have to give it up after a certain period of time. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but have you ever written a song that you put so much of yourself into?
Please.. when a cow invents a faster TCP/IP stack, I'll worry about its dreams. Till then, pass the A-1 and a sharp knife, cause Im hungry.
Alright then, until you invent a faster TCP/IP stack then I'll eat you the next time I see you!
Re:some plants rely on being eaten
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Vegetarian / Vegan is irrational. It denies the reality that we, as humans, have evolved as meat eaters. There is no way to argue against that and it's stupid to even try.
Yeah, Useless to try.. except for the millions of people out there that do it every day.
The consumption of meat has given us big brains. With those big brains we have been able to find ways to survive which reduce the need to torture and kill other animals.
You know for a fact that eating meat is what gave us big brains? Amazing, I look forward to reading about it in the scientific journals. Granted there has been some hypothesising that learning to cook out food lead to an increased intelligence, but it's just one guys theory.
Oh.. now I read the rest of your comment, I was just going to go point for point until I started agreeing with you. I was ready for a good old yelling match too.
I remember reading about how Feynman got a patent on nuclear-submarines (and others) in his book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman". Of course a ton of new technologies was being developed at Los Alamos and the patent officers would call up the different scientists working there and ask them what used the new tech could have. Well one item they developed was the nuclear reactor, and when Feynman was aked what could be done with it, he proposed a number of ideas including the fact that it could be used to power a submarine (he was just thinking of stuff off the top of his head). From that point on he got either a letter (or a letter with royalties, can't quite remember) that stated he was the owner of the 'nuclear submarine' patent. Sounds pretty much like what you described up there doesn't it?
Then you keep everything on a closed network. And the amount of data being sent would usually be so little you could encrypt the crap out of it, and processors could handle it in real time. Make all wireless stuff have a small radius. If there is a potential risk in one of the services just don't use that one. It would be just like securing a linux box.
Yeah, not to get too far offtopic, but string theory seems the most eligant solution right now. It proposes that there are 26 different 1D dimentsions that form everything we observer. Physical phenomenon all comes down to how this dimentions interact with each other. For example of dimensional interaction, time is a 1D dimension moving through a 3D space. Given this to work off of we can mathematicall explain many phenominons based purely off the geometry of those dimensions. Makes more sense to me than just quarks, because that still begs the question of what's smaller than quarks, and even if we get smaller that still doesn't help. If it all comes down to geometry I will be one happy guy. Let's hope we find out soon.
Of course it's okay say that you're working too much. Some employers will say 'oh I didn't realize, take some time off', others will just think you're trying to slack off. See how your manager handles other cases and act off of that. It may not be 'right' for them to force you to work extra hours, but sometimes keeping your job is more important that what right.
From my perspective, it makes a great deal of sense that we were engineered by that "mysterious god who knows and sees everything."
Well, consider that the universe has been around approximately 14 billion years. Life on earth has been around approx 570 million years ago. What if life evolved on another planet but took much longer than it did for earths life forms (i.e. we evolved quicker because we were engeneered). So this life form evolves over 8 billion years, then moves on to germinate the rest of the universe, what easier way than to just send out the basic code. What if there were several intermittent steps to get to DNA as we know it, but once it had evolved it could be sent out on meteorites and grow whole ecosystems. I'm not saying this is what happened.. there just isn't enough evidence. But I wouldn't count it out.
Telomeres are strands of "junk" DNA that show the age of an organism.
Telomers don't just show the age, they're the buffers at the end of our DNA. When each cell undergoes mitosis the process damages the end of the telomer. Once the telomer gets too short the process starts eating into the DNA itself, which then causes the cells to reproduce incorrectly. Thus we age. We've discovered a species of Turtle that doesn't seem to age. In fact it gets healthier as time goes passes. I'll try and find the article, it was in either Scientific American or Discover.
I just talked to a canadian online, we can stop wondering now.
"All a hoax. There was some farmer slaying som Ho's in British Columbia thought.
I am from Saskatchewan. U?"
I guess you could say we need new terminology. Cloning has always been theoretical until recently, so we always reffered to it as if it was a matured technology. We should probably call these clones 'imperfect clones' or something of that nature, because with the tech right now, we can't make them exact, we just don't know enough of what's actually happening. We just know we can make it happen.
Given this evidence it looks much more probable that this guy just got 5 chicks pregnant and is claming they're clones. Maybe he doesn't want the other 4 to know about the other 4?
Slashdot Mirror
not true, even the speed of light can be broken, i.e.: wormholes Are you implying that this web browser somehow employes worm holes to increase our browsing speed? Who wouldn't want to see the code for that?
Here
So does this make Neal Stephenson a prophet? So far so good.
Yes. It does. Not in the cases mentioned because they were immensely popular but in other less popular cases creations will be lost before they clear copyright leaving us that much poorer culturally.
In that case, if the idea/creation dissapears then it's free to be used in the future. I'm not arguing for a never-ending copyright, but intellectual property seems to be highly undervalued on slashdot.
Elvis is dead. It makes no sense to continually pay his heirs for his creations. He and his creations are now a part of history. His heirs din't create these songs. He did. (Aren't Elvis's songs commercialistic in nature with their connection to Graceland?)
No he's not!! just kidding, I was just picking an artist from the parent post, but my point was that when we work, whether it be on something physical or mental, we're trying to secure a living for ourselves and those close to us. If I want part of that to goto my decendants why shouldn't I? What if the created artwork doesn't become famous until after the person is dead, should all the profit just go back to the public? If the artist originally created the work to secure their family, but it just didn't work out in their lifetime, why should it be denied later? I do have some stake in the game, the more successful my decendants are, the more likely my genes are going to be passed to the next generation, the more likely my decendants are to be successful, and so on. (on a side note I wasn't suggesting that Elvis wasn't into commercialism, I was just posing an 'what if').
Most of us have to work for a living. We work each day for each day's pay. We don't get residuals from previous day's work. Why should an artist continue getting paid for one day's (or even one year's) work for the next 100 years?
There are differnt ways to earn a living, and being an artist holds a lot of risk, just as for example, building a business from scratch. If a entrepeneur has an idea for a product, then creates a company based off that product, when that person dies, they can leave the company to their decendants (effectively securing their well being). If you make a living from manual labor that is entirly different from making your living off of a creation. Apples and Oranges.
Absolutely not. That is simply robbing future generations of their culture and history. Elvis, Buddy Holly, I Love Lucy, Steamboat Willie. These things are beyond supporting their creators and have entered the realm of of US history and culture.
So you're saying that the future generations own any created work by default? If the person that came up with the idea never introduced it to the public in the first place, then the public wouldn't even know they already own it! Not to mention that the copyright holder retaining the copyright doesn't remove the idea from the public, it just places a few constraints on it's use.
The public still gets to hear Elvis, Buddy Holly ect. whether there's a copyright on them or not. If I'm going to cover an Elvis song it just makes sense that I need to pay Elvis's estate to do so. What happens to Graceland once the copyrights end? Without copyrights Elvis' music could be used for commercials even if he campaigned against commercialism while alive.
To paraphrase an old boss of mine: Poor planning on Eisner's part does not justify creating an emergency for me.
... sorry I'm feeling sarcastic today.
Yeah, he should have planned to make the copyright 400 years. What was he thinking?
Are you kidding? Copyright isn't there to reward artists, though that is becoming a very common misconception. It's there to entice artists to create works. It should only be long enough to do that. Obviously Steamboat Willy was already created.... lengthening the copyright to 95 years doesn't make more works for the public domain, it creates fewer because the companies can keep milking the same stories and characters.
Yes, god forbid someone who has a good idea actually get compensated for their time, effort and ingenuity. It's just words anyway! Words are free! Yay! Give me your words, and I'll give you as little as possible for them, just enough for you to make more.
Where's the logic?
The logic exists from the perspective of the person that created the work. They didn't create it for you, they created it for themselves, is that selfish? They don't owe you anything.
No, it's like building a house on public lands with public funds, with the express understanding that after those 95 years pass, you have to give the house back to the public. Then, when you've enjoyed the benefits of the agreement, and it comes time to pay, you then cry "Foul!", and try to get the law changed so that you don't have to live up to your side of the bargain.
How does the analogy of public funds fit in? If I sit down with a guitar and my voice and create a song, record the song and distribute it myself. Where does this public land and funds come from? Even though I recorded and distributed it myself I still have to give it up after a certain period of time. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but have you ever written a song that you put so much of yourself into?
Please.. when a cow invents a faster TCP/IP stack, I'll worry about its dreams. Till then, pass the A-1 and a sharp knife, cause Im hungry.
Alright then, until you invent a faster TCP/IP stack then I'll eat you the next time I see you!
Vegetarian / Vegan is irrational. It denies the reality that we, as humans, have evolved as meat eaters. There is no way to argue against that and it's stupid to even try.
Yeah, Useless to try.. except for the millions of people out there that do it every day.
The consumption of meat has given us big brains. With those big brains we have been able to find ways to survive which reduce the need to torture and kill other animals.
You know for a fact that eating meat is what gave us big brains? Amazing, I look forward to reading about it in the scientific journals. Granted there has been some hypothesising that learning to cook out food lead to an increased intelligence, but it's just one guys theory.
Oh.. now I read the rest of your comment, I was just going to go point for point until I started agreeing with you. I was ready for a good old yelling match too.
I remember reading about how Feynman got a patent on nuclear-submarines (and others) in his book "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman". Of course a ton of new technologies was being developed at Los Alamos and the patent officers would call up the different scientists working there and ask them what used the new tech could have. Well one item they developed was the nuclear reactor, and when Feynman was aked what could be done with it, he proposed a number of ideas including the fact that it could be used to power a submarine (he was just thinking of stuff off the top of his head). From that point on he got either a letter (or a letter with royalties, can't quite remember) that stated he was the owner of the 'nuclear submarine' patent. Sounds pretty much like what you described up there doesn't it?
Oops, I appologize. I was thinking of the beggining of the cambrian era, not the beggining of life. That does alter my argument doesn't it.
Then you keep everything on a closed network. And the amount of data being sent would usually be so little you could encrypt the crap out of it, and processors could handle it in real time. Make all wireless stuff have a small radius. If there is a potential risk in one of the services just don't use that one. It would be just like securing a linux box.
Amen, All of those features make the geek inside (and without) so excited.
Yeah, not to get too far offtopic, but string theory seems the most eligant solution right now. It proposes that there are 26 different 1D dimentsions that form everything we observer. Physical phenomenon all comes down to how this dimentions interact with each other. For example of dimensional interaction, time is a 1D dimension moving through a 3D space. Given this to work off of we can mathematicall explain many phenominons based purely off the geometry of those dimensions. Makes more sense to me than just quarks, because that still begs the question of what's smaller than quarks, and even if we get smaller that still doesn't help. If it all comes down to geometry I will be one happy guy. Let's hope we find out soon.
Of course it's okay say that you're working too much. Some employers will say 'oh I didn't realize, take some time off', others will just think you're trying to slack off. See how your manager handles other cases and act off of that. It may not be 'right' for them to force you to work extra hours, but sometimes keeping your job is more important that what right.
Wouldn't Dawn be more appropriate? As in Dawn of a new era? Not Eve Yes.. That is poetic, can I steal that (not exactly.. just the metaphore)?
I second that comment. It's still possible that there's a god that made us, but where did he come from?
Who engineered the aliens?
From my perspective, it makes a great deal of sense that we were engineered by that "mysterious god who knows and sees everything."
Well, consider that the universe has been around approximately 14 billion years. Life on earth has been around approx 570 million years ago. What if life evolved on another planet but took much longer than it did for earths life forms (i.e. we evolved quicker because we were engeneered). So this life form evolves over 8 billion years, then moves on to germinate the rest of the universe, what easier way than to just send out the basic code. What if there were several intermittent steps to get to DNA as we know it, but once it had evolved it could be sent out on meteorites and grow whole ecosystems. I'm not saying this is what happened.. there just isn't enough evidence. But I wouldn't count it out.
Here's the article I was talking about. Discover Magazine
Telomeres are strands of "junk" DNA that show the age of an organism.
Telomers don't just show the age, they're the buffers at the end of our DNA. When each cell undergoes mitosis the process damages the end of the telomer. Once the telomer gets too short the process starts eating into the DNA itself, which then causes the cells to reproduce incorrectly. Thus we age. We've discovered a species of Turtle that doesn't seem to age. In fact it gets healthier as time goes passes. I'll try and find the article, it was in either Scientific American or Discover.
I just talked to a canadian online, we can stop wondering now. "All a hoax. There was some farmer slaying som Ho's in British Columbia thought. I am from Saskatchewan. U?"
How is that offtopic? That could be exactly what happened. And by exactly I mean approximately.
If the clones are supposed to be exact replicas.
I guess you could say we need new terminology. Cloning has always been theoretical until recently, so we always reffered to it as if it was a matured technology. We should probably call these clones 'imperfect clones' or something of that nature, because with the tech right now, we can't make them exact, we just don't know enough of what's actually happening. We just know we can make it happen.
Given this evidence it looks much more probable that this guy just got 5 chicks pregnant and is claming they're clones. Maybe he doesn't want the other 4 to know about the other 4?