I don't know about you, but with the frequency that I upgrade, I doubt that it will have much of affect on what I purchase this year, or next. Its not often that I buy a whole new computer, I just buy one part at a time. This just means that some time in the future I will probably be looking into buying a Whole new computer.
On another note though, if technology is going to get much faster, we are definitly going to need to make changes like this, in the next 10 - 20 years we will probably see lots of changes like this. I doubt that it is anything to worry about, if anything we should get excited.
no, the implication is that in Europe more bandwidth is open, so they are able to dedicate more to each customer. Im not against the military, or its use of the spectrum in any way. Actually I support a large military. I was just pointing out that a huge chunk of the spectrum in the US is taken up by the military, and wondering if there was ever a thought of cleaning some of that up.
As I understand it, the US military is taking up the majority of the usable spectrum. You would think that in an age of encryption and such, those bands could all be opened up, and the military woudln't have any problems keeping their data secure. If that much band width were opened up who knows what we could do with it. I've also heard that in Europe that cellular phones are much clearer and have more functionality, due to the fact that the military blocks a significantly smaller portion of their spectrum.
Has anybody else heard anything along these lines?
No amount of money can cope with excessive annoyance.
It can if you pay someone else to deal with it for you. You are grosly underestimating the power of greed. If we sent him a few hundred copies of the same book he would probably be able to sell them back to the vendor fairly easily. We don't want to send him anything that could be of value, or anything whose value can be easily capitolized upon. Just keep sending him catalogues, they have relativly no value, and no matter how many he gets he wont be able to sell them back to anybody. Im not saying that the amount of money that could be gotten from selling back books would be significant, but don't spend money on the jerk when there is plenty of worthless crap you can send for free.
I think that space exploration would have taken off a lot sooner if policies were more open for comercial exploration. Not that NASA doesn't have its place.
about 2.5 times as much as I paid for my car. (granted I have a crappy car) $5000 and this thing doesn't even go fast eanough to catch air. Im sure somebody could come up with a hack, even so, I would rather have a $5000 bicycle than this thing.
You can try and justify it however you want, but its still a restriction of freedom on speech. This isn't a stupid law because hatred is correct or true, this is a stupid law because its adding restrictions on freedom. You can't do that. Its not freedom anymore if you can't say whatever you want.
Think about it, if they pass this law, what is stopping them from passing a law that makes it against the law to advocate violence, I mean violence is bad right. Okay so now what happens when they pass a law that says you shouldn't publish anything advocating an overthrow of the government, I mean those people are all crazy, right? Suddenly we are living in China.
freedom has its drawbacks, but we tolerate freedoms consiquences for a reason.
rofl, I think Im going to use that Orwell thing as my new sig.
Im an engineer, and I know that the type of people that take up engineering, for the most part, are not the type of people to sit by and let a machine do all the work. That is unless they know how the machine works. Any tools that are developed will be just that, tools. They may speed the development process, but without anybody who truly understands how something operates, you will get crappy products. I wont sit by and release crappy products, no matter how easy it was to design.
It seems like the FAQ is saying that choosing your OS should be like choosing sides in politics, critisizing Linus for putting the functionality of his product over the ideals of free software. That is complete CRAP! Seriously this is a free market society, how can somebody advocating freedom get off critisizing its own values. I appreciate the GNU project, however I never used any of the software to prove a point, and I never will. Im fine with calling it GNU/Linux, or I would have been, if I hadn't read this.
"The speed of light shouldnt be constant, in the good universe you can accelerate to whatever speed you want!"
Well it just doen't work that way. The company doesn't set the bar, the consumer does. If a company makes a crappy product, then the consumer lets them know by not buying it. If the consumer wants a "best-of-the-breed product" then the consumer will pay more for it. The morals of capitolism are nill. You can wish all you want that there was some sort of moral fiber driving invention, but 99.999 % of the time its just money. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying that this is the way it works.
Thousands of years of human innovation would seem to counter this hypothesis...
Okay, but look at the innovation over the last 100 years compared to the last 3000. One could argue that patents may be helping the process.
I see the point, and it is valid, however I still see many benifits to the patent. So the question is: Would we be better off with or without patents?
It seems to me like a system without patents would benifit the people with the resources and ability to produce goods, more than the inventor. As an engineer this disturbs me, because I have always thought of engineering as just another word for inventing. I see little incentive for an individual to put a lot of hard work into developing an idea, if they know that in the end it can just be stolen and mass produced by the guy up on the hill who already owns the mansion. Our system is already like that, but there is a chance that without patents it could be worse. Maybe what we need isn't no patents just better patent laws.
Maybe somebody can clear this up for me, but I dont understand this reasoning.
If you don't patent, and it is an idea that will take at least a fairly large infrastructure to impliment to the market, then couldn't a company, or companies, just steal it from you, while you (the inventor) get nothing? I hate this idea. I don't particularly like software patents, or rather how they are implimented, but other than that patents seem to protect the ideas of individuals, as well as force others to think of alternatives. We can grovel about the ways in which patents are implimented, but overall I think that they are a good thing.
As well I thought that patents were public domain, they just prevent others from profiting from your idea.
Maybe I am not seeing the full picture, feel free to point out any holes in my argument. I'm interested.
Cattle are continuously producing greenhouse gasses. They are one of the largest sources. So now we found some other mass of methane. Well why don't we use the stuff we already have, and eliminate one of the sources of greenhouse gas at the same time. At least that is better than releasing more gas. One may also worry that global warming will cause the ocean temperature to rise and then it will all be released, and I'm pretty sure that our environment would be really screwed up. Renewable Resources People, come on! Where is my dang fuel cell?
Im pretty sure that Monette did Waterlillies. Im not 100% certain, and I havn't botherd to look, but I guess it doesnt really matter. A painting by either artist would work for your argument.
Yeah on earth all organisms contain DNA. But I dont think that that is the ONLY way to do it. For instance do you think its possible to create a mechanical animal that sufficently mimics an animal currently living? How about an insect? We, humans, will probabaly be able to do this in the future. It raises questions about the definition of life, but thats a whole different argument.
Ive also heard that many scientist believe it would be possible to create life forms that are amonia based. This of wouldnt work on earth due to the temperature and preasure of the earths atmosphere.
If you look at it from the stand point of a programmer. Creativity comes through in the code. There are many ways to solve one problem, even if all of the algorithms are written in Perl (or more funamentally assmembly). If you really want to get down to it, its all numbers (1 & 0), and as far as I know math is math, there is only one addition, but many ways to add. So life is written in DNA. That doesnt mean that similar features on different creatures aren't implimented in different ways. There are examples everywhere if you look.
I guess you are right, because its impossible to understand everything about a system without leaving the system. Meaning that it is virtually impossible for humans to know everything about the universe without leaving it (impossible). If we assume that God is at a higher level than the universe (he would have to be to create it), then it is reasonable to say that perhaps science could explain everything about the universe as well as is possible, without ever encountering God. My point was only that God is part of the cosmos, and science, whose goal is to explain the cosmos, does not exclude him.
I had the exact same thought, but I dont think that Venezualas economy worrys microsoft that much. However Im willing to bet that it would be a big stepping stone if they tried to do this in the US. It has to be realized though that microsoft is only going to offer eanough money so that they still gain a profit, in the end Open Source will still be more economical, probabally.
I especially like the whenever possible part. Not that I am against Open Source, if anything I am pro Open Source. I am also a big believer in capitolism though, and I don't think that the government should be in any way restricted from using proprietary software if that is what they need. I especially dont think that the government should be restricted to open source where perhaps there is only a proprietary option. It would be a pretty big deal if all state schools and such stated a poicy. A lot more people would be more familiar with Linux, and other open source solutions. I think that maybe there could be layers, like first they would go to the open source comunity, and then if they didn't find a solution go to the small software company, and the last place they would go is the corperations. Otherwise they just circulate the money around at the top, and nothing happens where the money is needed.
I disagree. Doesnt science hope to explain everything. If there is a God, then one day science will explain him. I don't think that there is any benefit to going about science in either mind set(God, no God). Science is best when done with an open mind.
Perhaps there are sciences that will not ever intersect with any portion of this debate (mathematics). But I assure you, as long as there is no solid proof in either direction, the debate will continue. I say solid because as it now stands neither group is satisfied with the others answers, not that nobody has any good evidence. Any proof, by nature, would be scientific.
Im moving! But I dont know where. Any suggestions?
I've heard that Chile's government has a lot of Libritarian influence, I could be wrong, but if that is the case its probabally a safe bet that your internet access wont be messed with.(plus I wont have to hide my heroin habbit anymore.. jk)
dude, I dont think that anybody will miss their stop because they are watching an ad. I beleive that the train must be moving in order for the ad to be seen. Just an observation
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but with the frequency that I upgrade, I doubt that it will have much of affect on what I purchase this year, or next. Its not often that I buy a whole new computer, I just buy one part at a time. This just means that some time in the future I will probably be looking into buying a Whole new computer.
On another note though, if technology is going to get much faster, we are definitly going to need to make changes like this, in the next 10 - 20 years we will probably see lots of changes like this. I doubt that it is anything to worry about, if anything we should get excited.
This looks interesting but there is no room for a window to show off the goods! I guess performance is actually more important.
no, the implication is that in Europe more bandwidth is open, so they are able to dedicate more to each customer. Im not against the military, or its use of the spectrum in any way. Actually I support a large military. I was just pointing out that a huge chunk of the spectrum in the US is taken up by the military, and wondering if there was ever a thought of cleaning some of that up.
As I understand it, the US military is taking up the majority of the usable spectrum. You would think that in an age of encryption and such, those bands could all be opened up, and the military woudln't have any problems keeping their data secure. If that much band width were opened up who knows what we could do with it. I've also heard that in Europe that cellular phones are much clearer and have more functionality, due to the fact that the military blocks a significantly smaller portion of their spectrum.
Has anybody else heard anything along these lines?
No amount of money can cope with excessive annoyance.
It can if you pay someone else to deal with it for you. You are grosly underestimating the power of greed. If we sent him a few hundred copies of the same book he would probably be able to sell them back to the vendor fairly easily. We don't want to send him anything that could be of value, or anything whose value can be easily capitolized upon. Just keep sending him catalogues, they have relativly no value, and no matter how many he gets he wont be able to sell them back to anybody. Im not saying that the amount of money that could be gotten from selling back books would be significant, but don't spend money on the jerk when there is plenty of worthless crap you can send for free.
I can see you aren't a Libritarian.
I think that space exploration would have taken off a lot sooner if policies were more open for comercial exploration. Not that NASA doesn't have its place.
about 2.5 times as much as I paid for my car. (granted I have a crappy car) $5000 and this thing doesn't even go fast eanough to catch air. Im sure somebody could come up with a hack, even so, I would rather have a $5000 bicycle than this thing.
shouldn't be timothy == crap;
that is unless you are planning on storing "crap" at the memory location "timothy".
This law is awsome, no more hate and we solve the worlds energy problems. I don't see the down side.
You can try and justify it however you want, but its still a restriction of freedom on speech. This isn't a stupid law because hatred is correct or true, this is a stupid law because its adding restrictions on freedom. You can't do that. Its not freedom anymore if you can't say whatever you want.
Think about it, if they pass this law, what is stopping them from passing a law that makes it against the law to advocate violence, I mean violence is bad right. Okay so now what happens when they pass a law that says you shouldn't publish anything advocating an overthrow of the government, I mean those people are all crazy, right? Suddenly we are living in China.
freedom has its drawbacks, but we tolerate freedoms consiquences for a reason.
rofl, I think Im going to use that Orwell thing as my new sig.
Im an engineer, and I know that the type of people that take up engineering, for the most part, are not the type of people to sit by and let a machine do all the work. That is unless they know how the machine works. Any tools that are developed will be just that, tools. They may speed the development process, but without anybody who truly understands how something operates, you will get crappy products. I wont sit by and release crappy products, no matter how easy it was to design.
It seems like the FAQ is saying that choosing your OS should be like choosing sides in politics, critisizing Linus for putting the functionality of his product over the ideals of free software. That is complete CRAP! Seriously this is a free market society, how can somebody advocating freedom get off critisizing its own values. I appreciate the GNU project, however I never used any of the software to prove a point, and I never will. Im fine with calling it GNU/Linux, or I would have been, if I hadn't read this.
Saying something like that is almost like saying: Well it just doen't work that way. The company doesn't set the bar, the consumer does. If a company makes a crappy product, then the consumer lets them know by not buying it. If the consumer wants a "best-of-the-breed product" then the consumer will pay more for it. The morals of capitolism are nill. You can wish all you want that there was some sort of moral fiber driving invention, but 99.999 % of the time its just money. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying that this is the way it works.
Thousands of years of human innovation would seem to counter this hypothesis...
Okay, but look at the innovation over the last 100 years compared to the last 3000. One could argue that patents may be helping the process.
I see the point, and it is valid, however I still see many benifits to the patent. So the question is: Would we be better off with or without patents?
It seems to me like a system without patents would benifit the people with the resources and ability to produce goods, more than the inventor. As an engineer this disturbs me, because I have always thought of engineering as just another word for inventing. I see little incentive for an individual to put a lot of hard work into developing an idea, if they know that in the end it can just be stolen and mass produced by the guy up on the hill who already owns the mansion. Our system is already like that, but there is a chance that without patents it could be worse. Maybe what we need isn't no patents just better patent laws.
Maybe somebody can clear this up for me, but I dont understand this reasoning.
If you don't patent, and it is an idea that will take at least a fairly large infrastructure to impliment to the market, then couldn't a company, or companies, just steal it from you, while you (the inventor) get nothing? I hate this idea. I don't particularly like software patents, or rather how they are implimented, but other than that patents seem to protect the ideas of individuals, as well as force others to think of alternatives. We can grovel about the ways in which patents are implimented, but overall I think that they are a good thing.
As well I thought that patents were public domain, they just prevent others from profiting from your idea.
Maybe I am not seeing the full picture, feel free to point out any holes in my argument. I'm interested.
Here Here,
Cattle are continuously producing greenhouse gasses. They are one of the largest sources. So now we found some other mass of methane. Well why don't we use the stuff we already have, and eliminate one of the sources of greenhouse gas at the same time. At least that is better than releasing more gas. One may also worry that global warming will cause the ocean temperature to rise and then it will all be released, and I'm pretty sure that our environment would be really screwed up. Renewable Resources People, come on! Where is my dang fuel cell?
Im pretty sure that Monette did Waterlillies. Im not 100% certain, and I havn't botherd to look, but I guess it doesnt really matter. A painting by either artist would work for your argument.
Yeah on earth all organisms contain DNA. But I dont think that that is the ONLY way to do it. For instance do you think its possible to create a mechanical animal that sufficently mimics an animal currently living? How about an insect? We, humans, will probabaly be able to do this in the future. It raises questions about the definition of life, but thats a whole different argument.
Ive also heard that many scientist believe it would be possible to create life forms that are amonia based. This of wouldnt work on earth due to the temperature and preasure of the earths atmosphere.
If you look at it from the stand point of a programmer. Creativity comes through in the code. There are many ways to solve one problem, even if all of the algorithms are written in Perl (or more funamentally assmembly). If you really want to get down to it, its all numbers (1 & 0), and as far as I know math is math, there is only one addition, but many ways to add. So life is written in DNA. That doesnt mean that similar features on different creatures aren't implimented in different ways. There are examples everywhere if you look.
I guess you are right, because its impossible to understand everything about a system without leaving the system. Meaning that it is virtually impossible for humans to know everything about the universe without leaving it (impossible). If we assume that God is at a higher level than the universe (he would have to be to create it), then it is reasonable to say that perhaps science could explain everything about the universe as well as is possible, without ever encountering God. My point was only that God is part of the cosmos, and science, whose goal is to explain the cosmos, does not exclude him.
I had the exact same thought, but I dont think that Venezualas economy worrys microsoft that much. However Im willing to bet that it would be a big stepping stone if they tried to do this in the US. It has to be realized though that microsoft is only going to offer eanough money so that they still gain a profit, in the end Open Source will still be more economical, probabally.
I especially like the whenever possible part. Not that I am against Open Source, if anything I am pro Open Source. I am also a big believer in capitolism though, and I don't think that the government should be in any way restricted from using proprietary software if that is what they need. I especially dont think that the government should be restricted to open source where perhaps there is only a proprietary option. It would be a pretty big deal if all state schools and such stated a poicy. A lot more people would be more familiar with Linux, and other open source solutions. I think that maybe there could be layers, like first they would go to the open source comunity, and then if they didn't find a solution go to the small software company, and the last place they would go is the corperations. Otherwise they just circulate the money around at the top, and nothing happens where the money is needed.
I disagree. Doesnt science hope to explain everything. If there is a God, then one day science will explain him. I don't think that there is any benefit to going about science in either mind set(God, no God). Science is best when done with an open mind.
Perhaps there are sciences that will not ever intersect with any portion of this debate (mathematics). But I assure you, as long as there is no solid proof in either direction, the debate will continue. I say solid because as it now stands neither group is satisfied with the others answers, not that nobody has any good evidence. Any proof, by nature, would be scientific.
Im movin'
I've heard that Chile's government has a lot of Libritarian influence, I could be wrong, but if that is the case its probabally a safe bet that your internet access wont be messed with.(plus I wont have to hide my heroin habbit anymore.. jk)
dude, I dont think that anybody will miss their stop because they are watching an ad. I beleive that the train must be moving in order for the ad to be seen. Just an observation