Clause 2 says, in its entirety, "the nature of the copyrighted work". That's incredibly vague. You'll have to provide more evidence that this means the copyrighted work must be related in subject matter to the potentially infringing content to convince me. Now if you don't care about convincing me, that is fine.:-)
I'm pleased to note that I've come a bit further on defining intelligence ("thinking") since then: The difference is whatever separates the great ape's cerebral cortex from the rest of the mammal brains; it's bound to be something to do with the differences in myelination of the neurons in the CC compared to the rest of the brain. How that contributes to consciousness, I don't know.
That would be a lousy definition of thinking. It would exclude anything without myelinated neurons. Aliens, computers, humans in the year 6 million AD who have evolved beyond primitive myelination to something else, etc. It would however make a great understanding of thinking as we know it today.
That's really not true. I have two kids, and I've warned them about the oven and stove being really hot, and you know what? They know what hot is, they know what getting hurt is, and they don't try to touch it. They have not in fact had to test it themselves. YMMV, maybe your kids had to burn themselves first, I don't know, but it's not universally true that a kid has to get burned before they'll know to not touch a hot stove.
If you don't know what that nonphysical entity is or how it comes to be, then you don't know that a computer wouldn't have it too. If you do know, please share.
"Ultimately, due to Carnot efficiency limits, the heat pump's performance will approach 1.0 as the outdoor-to-indoor temperature difference increases. This typically occurs around â'18 ÂC (0 ÂF) outdoor temperature for air source heat pumps. Also, as the heat pump takes heat out of the air, some moisture in the outdoor air may condense and possibly freeze on the outdoor heat exchanger. The system must periodically melt this ice. In other words, when it is extremely cold outside, it is simpler, and wears the machine less, to heat using an electric-resistance heater than to strain an air-source heat pump."
So sometimes 1.0 is the best you can do, although obviously there are lots of places where such temperatures wouldn't be a concern.
"When comparing the performance of heat pumps, it is best to avoid the word "efficiency" which has a very specific thermodynamic definition. The term coefficient of performance (COP) is used to describe the ratio of useful heat movement to work input."
You can get more than 100 joules of heat energy from less than 100 joules of electrical energy? How does that work? You sure you're not thinking of cooling, where you can *move* heat at greater than 100% efficiency?
That has nothing to do with resistive heating and everything to do with how I'm getting my electricity. It could be coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind... Natural gas is a temporary solution, since it will run out eventually. For now, it's a better solution than electric heating for most places in the US, and in fact the house I'm moving to has gas heat.
For a permanent solution we'll be going back to electric heating since that will be compatible with all the renewable sources of energy we'll be using in the future.
Isn't that extremely efficient? Resistive heating is 100% efficient: it converts every bit of electricity going in to heat. Is there something else going on with a power brick such that some of the power is not generating heat? And if so, what? How much it costs is a separate question, and one that's not relevant if like me you don't have any source of heat other than electricity.
I'm not suggesting we should be using 360 power supplies to heat our homes, only questioning whether it would be inefficient to do so, compared to conventional electric heating.
To be fair, My suburban is quite useful before the plows have hit, and being on call for IT means occasionally I have been the only one who could get to the data center in a reasonable time.
In other words, having a big heavy 4WD truck than can get through the deep snow is a bad thing. You want somebody else in the department to have that vehicle. Unfortunately for you, you are that somebody else.;-)
Not quite, but my father-in-law's BMW 3-series convertible was his first choice skiing vehicle (before he sold it), and he also had an Expedition. The only time he would take the truck is if there were too many people going for the BMW, or if it was likely to be really muddy in the parking lot (springtime). And I have seen at least one Porsche with skis on it. I forget if it was a 911 or a Boxster.
Well I'm not a runner, and I don't know what kind of cell phone you have. Maybe you have a pocket that would work. Perhaps there's an arm strap available that would hold it. Maybe I don't sweat as much as your wife does but even playing basketball or tennis I wouldn't worry about a phone in my pocket getting any water damage. I wouldn't have it in there, but that's because 1) it could fall out and 2) I could fall on it. In either case I'm sure the phone would be fine, but it could be inconvenient or worse for people.
My impression was you were concerned about shock damage, but I can see that comfort could be a concern depending on what you wear when running.
- MP3 player: you're suggesting that your phone would be damaged by jogging? Cell phones have no moving parts. If you drop them onto concrete they may be damaged (though I've done so and only scratched the case), but seriously they are not delicate.
- Camera: I didn't know there were smartphones (smart enough for internet access anyway) that don't allow you to transfer files any way you want. That is just pathetic.
Very true about the pointer, that is annoying. Otherwise... what kind of message windows are you getting? The only times I get them from the OS are when installing something, doing some system admin task like backups, or copying/moving a file into a "sensitive" area. Maybe those are the kinds of tasks you're doing all the time? And you can just turn off the translucency.
The processor is just a Core2 Duo T5750 which barely clocks at 2.0ghz. They try to make up for the mediocre processor with 4gb of 333mhz DDR2, and fail.
Wow, when did a dual core 2 GHz processor become mediocre? I know for a fact that's plenty fast enough to run Vista with all the shiny stuff turned on with "only" 2GB of RAM - what makes this processor so inadequate?
Well, I was assuming you can get to an expansion or two and have at least two, maybe three geysers. Which it seems is usually the case unless the map is really crowded or has no expansions or something. And by "pumping out guardians" I mean make 10-12 of them and then go on a rampage. Build up gas and spawn Mutes for the next wave while you're on the attack. Obviously you can't make 80 guardians like you can Zerglings.
If there's useful terrain around, the carrier rush could still be effective since plague doesn't affect shields. Attack with the carriers from beyond hydro range and use a ridge, water, etc to keep the ground units away. OTOH, plague + mutalisks... ouch. I always found though that High Templar are the biggest threat to carriers. Two or three of them can take out pretty much any number of carriers if they're all together.
If you're playing Zerg with huge resources, can't you build huge numbers of hydralisks and/or mutalisks and/or guardians, instead of huge numbers of zerglings? I mean, six or eight hatcheries pumping out, say, hydralisks and guardians gets pretty nasty pretty fast. Or heck, Ultralisk rush. It seems to me that it's not so much that Protoss has to spend more money, but that they make fewer, more powerful, more expensive units. But then I'm no champion.
The Rules of War (boy isn't that a funny notion) say that to get POW protections you have to be a lawful combatant, which means uniformed and not hiding behind civilians and such.
"inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces" are entitled to POW protection. Looks like a uniform is not necessarily required.
"4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
If polygyny AND polyandry are in place, every male can have a wife. I've never heard of such a society though. And a man having more than one wife, as has been pointed out before (I think to you), is both polygyny and polygamy.
Right. My only point is that the amount of effort that went into the copyrighted work has nothing to do with that. It's just an emotionally tempting red herring. Don't get me wrong, it's quite relevant to the artist - but not to the consumer, and therefore not to the transaction.
It's really interesting how the pragmatic/economic discussion and the moral/legal discussion collide. You can argue as strenuously as you want that it's wrong to take copyrighted works for free, and at the end of the day it just doesn't matter. And you probably know this already. Once something is released digitally, it's gone, out of your control. You can choose to hate the people who distribute it without your permission. You can also choose whether to continue with your business model or find a new one. These are two orthogonal decisions. Finding a new business model doesn't mean admitting the file sharers are right. Yelling about how the file sharers are wrong doesn't do anything to get you more revenue.
I'm not trying to single you out, I don't even know if your income has anything to do with intellectual property. Just substitute "artist" for "you" I guess.
They're buying labor and talent and skill, which is the same thing you're buying when you buy a hand-made chair (I'd hope, anyway, as hand-made furniture tends to be quite expensive).
No, they're buying a book. They don't (or, economically, shouldn't) care about labor, talent, time, or skill, only about the book. I personally couldn't care less if a book took 10 years to write or 10 weeks, only if it's a good book and worth the price I paid to have it. I also don't care if the author is really good or just got lucky once (although that may come into play if I decide to buy something else by that author).
No, you're paying for the labor, skill, and talent... and people who put more effort, skill, and talent into their creations are rightfully awarded with more than those who put little effort into their work.
No, people who create things that consumers are willing to pay for are rewarded. That is all. Nobody is entitled to payment for their efforts just because it was a lot of work.
I'm not arguing the system is great... publishers keep the lion's share of profits, which is wrong. Copyrights simply last too long, which is wrong. But the fundamental idea of copyright is well founded and well thought out.
The purpose of copyright is not to make sure people make money from their art, it's to make sure there's art (speaking broadly - literature, artwork, music, etc). And I cannot believe we wouldn't have plenty of art without copyright. Certainly what you say about the flaws of the system is correct, but do we even need copyright at all? Maybe, but it should be very limited.
Slashdot Mirror
Clause 2 says, in its entirety, "the nature of the copyrighted work". That's incredibly vague. You'll have to provide more evidence that this means the copyrighted work must be related in subject matter to the potentially infringing content to convince me. Now if you don't care about convincing me, that is fine. :-)
It's like "the" prisoner's dilemma, right? Many variations, but fundamentally the same situation.
I'm pleased to note that I've come a bit further on defining intelligence ("thinking") since then: The difference is whatever separates the great ape's cerebral cortex from the rest of the mammal brains; it's bound to be something to do with the differences in myelination of the neurons in the CC compared to the rest of the brain. How that contributes to consciousness, I don't know.
That would be a lousy definition of thinking. It would exclude anything without myelinated neurons. Aliens, computers, humans in the year 6 million AD who have evolved beyond primitive myelination to something else, etc. It would however make a great understanding of thinking as we know it today.
That's really not true. I have two kids, and I've warned them about the oven and stove being really hot, and you know what? They know what hot is, they know what getting hurt is, and they don't try to touch it. They have not in fact had to test it themselves. YMMV, maybe your kids had to burn themselves first, I don't know, but it's not universally true that a kid has to get burned before they'll know to not touch a hot stove.
If you don't know what that nonphysical entity is or how it comes to be, then you don't know that a computer wouldn't have it too. If you do know, please share.
Gotcha, and the efficiency depends on temperature difference, apparently the closer the temperature the more efficient it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
"Ultimately, due to Carnot efficiency limits, the heat pump's performance will approach 1.0 as the outdoor-to-indoor temperature difference increases. This typically occurs around â'18 ÂC (0 ÂF) outdoor temperature for air source heat pumps. Also, as the heat pump takes heat out of the air, some moisture in the outdoor air may condense and possibly freeze on the outdoor heat exchanger. The system must periodically melt this ice. In other words, when it is extremely cold outside, it is simpler, and wears the machine less, to heat using an electric-resistance heater than to strain an air-source heat pump."
So sometimes 1.0 is the best you can do, although obviously there are lots of places where such temperatures wouldn't be a concern.
"When comparing the performance of heat pumps, it is best to avoid the word "efficiency" which has a very specific thermodynamic definition. The term coefficient of performance (COP) is used to describe the ratio of useful heat movement to work input."
You can get more than 100 joules of heat energy from less than 100 joules of electrical energy? How does that work? You sure you're not thinking of cooling, where you can *move* heat at greater than 100% efficiency?
That has nothing to do with resistive heating and everything to do with how I'm getting my electricity. It could be coal, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind... Natural gas is a temporary solution, since it will run out eventually. For now, it's a better solution than electric heating for most places in the US, and in fact the house I'm moving to has gas heat.
For a permanent solution we'll be going back to electric heating since that will be compatible with all the renewable sources of energy we'll be using in the future.
Ooooh, she's a hot standby? Pics please!
Isn't that extremely efficient? Resistive heating is 100% efficient: it converts every bit of electricity going in to heat. Is there something else going on with a power brick such that some of the power is not generating heat? And if so, what? How much it costs is a separate question, and one that's not relevant if like me you don't have any source of heat other than electricity.
I'm not suggesting we should be using 360 power supplies to heat our homes, only questioning whether it would be inefficient to do so, compared to conventional electric heating.
To be fair, My suburban is quite useful before the plows have hit, and being on call for IT means occasionally I have been the only one who could get to the data center in a reasonable time.
In other words, having a big heavy 4WD truck than can get through the deep snow is a bad thing. You want somebody else in the department to have that vehicle. Unfortunately for you, you are that somebody else. ;-)
Not quite, but my father-in-law's BMW 3-series convertible was his first choice skiing vehicle (before he sold it), and he also had an Expedition. The only time he would take the truck is if there were too many people going for the BMW, or if it was likely to be really muddy in the parking lot (springtime). And I have seen at least one Porsche with skis on it. I forget if it was a 911 or a Boxster.
Well I'm not a runner, and I don't know what kind of cell phone you have. Maybe you have a pocket that would work. Perhaps there's an arm strap available that would hold it. Maybe I don't sweat as much as your wife does but even playing basketball or tennis I wouldn't worry about a phone in my pocket getting any water damage. I wouldn't have it in there, but that's because 1) it could fall out and 2) I could fall on it. In either case I'm sure the phone would be fine, but it could be inconvenient or worse for people.
My impression was you were concerned about shock damage, but I can see that comfort could be a concern depending on what you wear when running.
- MP3 player: you're suggesting that your phone would be damaged by jogging? Cell phones have no moving parts. If you drop them onto concrete they may be damaged (though I've done so and only scratched the case), but seriously they are not delicate.
- Camera: I didn't know there were smartphones (smart enough for internet access anyway) that don't allow you to transfer files any way you want. That is just pathetic.
Very true about the pointer, that is annoying. Otherwise... what kind of message windows are you getting? The only times I get them from the OS are when installing something, doing some system admin task like backups, or copying/moving a file into a "sensitive" area. Maybe those are the kinds of tasks you're doing all the time? And you can just turn off the translucency.
The processor is just a Core2 Duo T5750 which barely clocks at 2.0ghz. They try to make up for the mediocre processor with 4gb of 333mhz DDR2, and fail.
Wow, when did a dual core 2 GHz processor become mediocre? I know for a fact that's plenty fast enough to run Vista with all the shiny stuff turned on with "only" 2GB of RAM - what makes this processor so inadequate?
Well, I was assuming you can get to an expansion or two and have at least two, maybe three geysers. Which it seems is usually the case unless the map is really crowded or has no expansions or something. And by "pumping out guardians" I mean make 10-12 of them and then go on a rampage. Build up gas and spawn Mutes for the next wave while you're on the attack. Obviously you can't make 80 guardians like you can Zerglings.
If there's useful terrain around, the carrier rush could still be effective since plague doesn't affect shields. Attack with the carriers from beyond hydro range and use a ridge, water, etc to keep the ground units away. OTOH, plague + mutalisks... ouch. I always found though that High Templar are the biggest threat to carriers. Two or three of them can take out pretty much any number of carriers if they're all together.
Yeah that's true, that gets them going earlier.
If you're playing Zerg with huge resources, can't you build huge numbers of hydralisks and/or mutalisks and/or guardians, instead of huge numbers of zerglings? I mean, six or eight hatcheries pumping out, say, hydralisks and guardians gets pretty nasty pretty fast. Or heck, Ultralisk rush. It seems to me that it's not so much that Protoss has to spend more money, but that they make fewer, more powerful, more expensive units. But then I'm no champion.
"inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who take up arms openly to resist the invading forces" are entitled to POW protection. Looks like a uniform is not necessarily required.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/pow-bck.htm#P41_7391
http://www.superpatriots.us/aboutthecase/genevaconvention.htm#Article_4
"4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Again no requirement for a uniform to get POW status, but there are other requirements they must meet.
If polygyny AND polyandry are in place, every male can have a wife. I've never heard of such a society though. And a man having more than one wife, as has been pointed out before (I think to you), is both polygyny and polygamy.
Right. My only point is that the amount of effort that went into the copyrighted work has nothing to do with that. It's just an emotionally tempting red herring. Don't get me wrong, it's quite relevant to the artist - but not to the consumer, and therefore not to the transaction.
It's really interesting how the pragmatic/economic discussion and the moral/legal discussion collide. You can argue as strenuously as you want that it's wrong to take copyrighted works for free, and at the end of the day it just doesn't matter. And you probably know this already. Once something is released digitally, it's gone, out of your control. You can choose to hate the people who distribute it without your permission. You can also choose whether to continue with your business model or find a new one. These are two orthogonal decisions. Finding a new business model doesn't mean admitting the file sharers are right. Yelling about how the file sharers are wrong doesn't do anything to get you more revenue.
I'm not trying to single you out, I don't even know if your income has anything to do with intellectual property. Just substitute "artist" for "you" I guess.
They're buying labor and talent and skill, which is the same thing you're buying when you buy a hand-made chair (I'd hope, anyway, as hand-made furniture tends to be quite expensive).
No, they're buying a book. They don't (or, economically, shouldn't) care about labor, talent, time, or skill, only about the book. I personally couldn't care less if a book took 10 years to write or 10 weeks, only if it's a good book and worth the price I paid to have it. I also don't care if the author is really good or just got lucky once (although that may come into play if I decide to buy something else by that author).
No, you're paying for the labor, skill, and talent... and people who put more effort, skill, and talent into their creations are rightfully awarded with more than those who put little effort into their work.
No, people who create things that consumers are willing to pay for are rewarded. That is all. Nobody is entitled to payment for their efforts just because it was a lot of work.
I'm not arguing the system is great... publishers keep the lion's share of profits, which is wrong. Copyrights simply last too long, which is wrong. But the fundamental idea of copyright is well founded and well thought out.
The purpose of copyright is not to make sure people make money from their art, it's to make sure there's art (speaking broadly - literature, artwork, music, etc). And I cannot believe we wouldn't have plenty of art without copyright. Certainly what you say about the flaws of the system is correct, but do we even need copyright at all? Maybe, but it should be very limited.