You should realize that there is more than one definition of "democracy", and the US either is or is not a democracy, depending on the definition in use. So you should pin down which definition someone is using before you start telling them they're wrong. I think after you each describe your respective definitions, there won't even be any argument to have. Hm, maybe that is why this keeps going so long.:-)
The other reply mentioned the part about how this is (or might be) satire and a cereal box is not. That leaves your claim that having an entire work of satire on one subject is different, as far as these laws are concerned, from one section of a larger work covering many topics. Why do you think that makes a difference? Why would it be OK to have only one chapter of satire about His Chuckness, but a cause for civil action if the whole book is about him?
Do you think European people have no interest in visiting New York or Hollywood, or Las Vegas, or Yellowstone, or the Grand Canyon or so many other sites they have seen in books and movies? New York I'd like to visit. The rest of those, meh Wow, I've never heard anybody apply the word "meh" to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon. Either you don't know much about them, or you have little interest in natural beauty.
There is no "non-commercial" restriction on the satire fair use rules (clauses, findings, laws, whatever they are, IANAL either). It doesn't matter if you make a million bucks or nothing; doesn't matter if it's a comic strip or a 3-volume set of books; if it's found to be satire but not defamation, then the plaintiff is not going to get anywhere. Otherwise outlets such as The Onion, SNL, and The Daily Show (as well as many others) couldn't do what they do for long.
Well, I think everyone knows that by "oil" I meant "petroleum oil", which this biofuel you reference is not. I'll also highlight some differences between what I said and what the Wikipedia article says.
The only other possibility is that new oil is being created as fast as we're using it, and I've never heard anyone suggest that.
A self-published article by Michael Briggs, at the UNH Biodiesel Group, offers estimates for the realistic replacement of all vehicular fuel with biodiesel by utilizing algae that have a natural oil content greater than 50%, which Briggs suggests can be grown on algae ponds at wastewater treatment plants.[36] This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, with the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol.
The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not yet been undertaken on a commercial scale, but feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to its projected high yield, algaculture -- unlike crop-based biofuels -- does not entail a decrease in food production, since it requires neither farmland nor fresh water. So to sum up with more precise language, new natural petroleum oil is not being created nearly as fast as we're using it (if at all), we will stop extracting natural petroleum oil at some point, and other energy sources will take its place. Perhaps this algae source will be one of those.
Certainly. I didn't say it would be a crisis, although if oil production becomes impractical too suddenly there will be significant disruptions. If it's gradual enough, other technologies will smoothly take over. At least somewhat smoothly. The open question in my mind is whether those technologies will replace oil at a higher cost, lower cost, or comparable. We'll definitely keep using more energy, but there's no natural law that says it has to be as cheap as it is now.
All it takes is once. I'm not saying I know when it's going to happen, but surely everyone here can see that eventually it will no longer be economically worthwhile to extract any more oil. We won't actually run out, but there will be so little left that it's too hard to get out. The only other possibility is that new oil is being created as fast as we're using it, and I've never heard anyone suggest that. So eventually, yes, oil production will stop.
If some new communication medium comes along that is superior in every way to radio, why would we keep using radio? It's possible that radio will continue in use indefinitely, but really my point is that the presumption of SETI is that a technological civilization will at some point use radio communications. Whether they stop using it or keep using it is secondary. Another poster made the point that the equipment we're using is far too weak to detect anything other than a powerful signal directed at us (I assume he's correct but I don't know). Even that doesn't preclude finding an advanced civilization that's moved on from radio to quarfle transmissions, since they could reason that others might still use radio and so use that for their own SETI program.
It's not completely far-fetched, since the little green men might be able to find Earth and see that it's in a life-supporting temperature zone, and so send signals our way. The numbers are still stacked against us though, since besides the timing, there could be billions of such planets.
Anyway, my vote is keep doing SETI.
As far as radio goes, I think the idea is that most civilizations would pass through the radio phase, and at some point send out signals looking for other intelligence out there, just like we're doing. Or maybe just leak their equivalent of TV and radio into space, also like we're doing. We might not see what they're up to now, but the main purpose is to find out that they're there, not so much to communicate. Since after all it would be like: "hi" (10 million years pass) "hello, how are you?" (10 million years pass) "Fine thanks, my name is Steve, what's yours?" etc. So I think radio is appropriate, besides which we don't know what else to look for.
I think I've explained my original comment two or three times now, you can read one of those if you want to know what I was talking about. Explaining it again will probably not help.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, I said it depends on what the test is supposed to do. If it's not supposed to distinguish between performances above a certain level, then fine. Any number of people can get 100% and it's OK.
It may be a flaw because the test failed to distinguish as well as it could have between the person who's good at French and the one who's spectacular at it. If, however, that is not the goal of the test, then that's irrelevant. It just depends what the test is supposed to do.
That is true, that's another possible path to take. And from what I've seen most teachers don't take the approach I outlined. Which is just fine; I prefaced it with a qualification about what the test is for. If it's not for measuring and distinguishing between the performances of students compared to each other, then it's fine for people to ace it and even for everyone to get an A.
I think people should be able to get 100%, since it's a target to aim for, but it should be a challenge even for the top students. If the goal of the exam is to measure and distinguish between the performances, then somebody getting 100% is a flaw. That's because there's no measured difference between somebody who could barely figure out the hard questions in time but aced the test, and somebody else who had little trouble with any of it and aced the test. Those two people clearly have different aptitude, but the test doesn't show that. If the test were hard enough that nobody got everything right, then you know that it has fully measured everyone's ability (assuming they performed to their ability). The bigger the standard deviation in aptitude is, the harder it is to make such a test.
Analogy time!! You're grilling hot dogs, and they all get eaten (this is analogous to 100%). Well, did they all get eaten because you cooked exactly enough, or would people have eaten six more if they had been available? After everyone' done eating you want to have one hot dog left. That means everyone got as much as they wanted, but you didn't waste much. On a test you want the top performer to miss at least one question (there's no analog to a wasted hot dog as missing more than one question is OK).
If TiVo found the spirit of GPL so horrible, why did they 'steal' the code licensed under GPL?
They took it for free, giving nothing back. I don't know if that was your intent, but I think you answered your own question. They used it because they could do so without paying, and they don't give a flying [animal]'s [body part] about contributing to the codebase or community.
The FSF is happy with people who want proprietary code to use their own propreitary code. Actually, didn't Stallman say proprietary software is unethical? I don't know if that's the FSF's position or just his, though.
I don't think that's the point at all. Firstly, I can use GPL software however I want. No restrictions. The GPL only restricts how I can distribute the software. Secondly, the rights you have have nothing to do with how much you paid for the software, rather they are specified by the license. If you violate the license, (IIUC) your rights revert to what you would have under copyright, which is less than the GPL grants you. I needn't complain about the restrictions on distributing GPL code, not because I didn't pay for it, but because the license is right there and it's my responsibility to know my rights. Also, if you legally obtain music or a movie for free rather than paying for it (for example the copyright holder is giving it away or it's public domain) does that reduce what rights you have in using it? Of course not. It's not about the money.
The joke was that you're entertained by printer supplies. And if you really are entertained by printer supplies, I think I really do feel sorry for you. Or maybe I'm jealous, I'm not sure.
Many ex-CD buyers have found better value for their entertainment dollar. I for example now spend the money on computer upgrades, printer supplies, Broadband Internet, MP3 players, DVD's, DVD players, and a nice LCD TV. I feel sorry for you, man.;-)
If you are buying a fancy car to show off your wealth or whatever, when perfectly good alternatives exist, you deserve to be robbed. If you think it's only fancy expensive cars that have remote keyless entry, you're misinformed. The rental Malibu I was stuck with had it, and if that's a fancy car then I'm a tossed salad. I'm not sure why you think the victims of car theft should be blamed for the crime, but I don't agree. The criminals are at fault, regardless of the victim's motivation for buying that particular vehicle. Why do people only deserve their property rights when they buy things you approve of, anyway?
I think by new and interesting software, he doesn't just mean adding features (some of which I'm sure you care about) but whole applications. It's possible if processors hadn't gotten any faster that (for example) Firefox would have come out months later because the developers had to spend that much time on their code to make it usable on slow hardware. Personally I would rather have the software available sooner, and go ahead and throw faster hardware at it. When a pretty decent desktop costs $500, and a really good one $1000, it's very much worth it to buy a new one every few years.
As for expense and scarcity, your comments may indicate that good software is scarce. Lots of people write software, but what percentage are really good at it? If we can have more software from the good developers by using faster processors, thus letting them spend more of their time writing new software rather than making their software run faster, I'd say that's a good thing.
Finally, response time. I would have hoped boot times would have gotten shorter by now. Apparently not, and that's a shame. But for pretty much everything else, it seems to me a modern computer does everything very quickly. Almost always much faster than I can begin to get impatient with it, and I don't even have a new machine. On my work computer, the only programs I have to really wait for to start up are Lotus Notes after I've rebooted (if I close and then later reopen it it's fast) and Eclipse. Everything else basically starts instantly. Other things I have to wait for include compiling (developers have been waiting on this since the invention of the stick, and it's much faster now than it used to be) and ripping DVDs, which you couldn't have even considered doing in any reasonable time when DVD-ROM drives first came out. Now I can rip a feature length movie in about 25 minutes, on the aforementioned not-new PC. So I just don't see what the fuss is about. In my experience - maybe yours is different - almost all software, open source and closed, is efficient enough to run just great on modern hardware, and that's good enough for me. If I can give up a little bit of response time here and there to gain more features, fewer bugs, more frequent updates, or more applications, sign me up.
Perhaps. It may be that on purpose is harder to clean up, or maybe if we have the will then we can make coal plants that don't produce such nasty stuff (other things besides just mercury). I really don't know which it is. One good thing about doing it on purpose is that it cannot be hidden. You might be able to obscure a nuclear material leak or coal power plant accident, but you cannot conceal the fact that we're burning coal to make electricity, and you cannot really conceal what it puts into the atmosphere from those who care to find out. Though I'm sure plenty of people would like to do just that, and whether there are enough people who care is also a question. In any event, we must do something about the coal - either figure out how to use it (more) cleanly, or figure out how to stop using it. I doubt either option will be easy, fast, or cheap (where fast is measured in something like 100 years or more IMHO).
Slashdot Mirror
You should realize that there is more than one definition of "democracy", and the US either is or is not a democracy, depending on the definition in use. So you should pin down which definition someone is using before you start telling them they're wrong. I think after you each describe your respective definitions, there won't even be any argument to have. Hm, maybe that is why this keeps going so long. :-)
The other reply mentioned the part about how this is (or might be) satire and a cereal box is not. That leaves your claim that having an entire work of satire on one subject is different, as far as these laws are concerned, from one section of a larger work covering many topics. Why do you think that makes a difference? Why would it be OK to have only one chapter of satire about His Chuckness, but a cause for civil action if the whole book is about him?
There is no "non-commercial" restriction on the satire fair use rules (clauses, findings, laws, whatever they are, IANAL either). It doesn't matter if you make a million bucks or nothing; doesn't matter if it's a comic strip or a 3-volume set of books; if it's found to be satire but not defamation, then the plaintiff is not going to get anywhere. Otherwise outlets such as The Onion, SNL, and The Daily Show (as well as many others) couldn't do what they do for long.
Certainly. I didn't say it would be a crisis, although if oil production becomes impractical too suddenly there will be significant disruptions. If it's gradual enough, other technologies will smoothly take over. At least somewhat smoothly. The open question in my mind is whether those technologies will replace oil at a higher cost, lower cost, or comparable. We'll definitely keep using more energy, but there's no natural law that says it has to be as cheap as it is now.
All it takes is once. I'm not saying I know when it's going to happen, but surely everyone here can see that eventually it will no longer be economically worthwhile to extract any more oil. We won't actually run out, but there will be so little left that it's too hard to get out. The only other possibility is that new oil is being created as fast as we're using it, and I've never heard anyone suggest that. So eventually, yes, oil production will stop.
If some new communication medium comes along that is superior in every way to radio, why would we keep using radio? It's possible that radio will continue in use indefinitely, but really my point is that the presumption of SETI is that a technological civilization will at some point use radio communications. Whether they stop using it or keep using it is secondary. Another poster made the point that the equipment we're using is far too weak to detect anything other than a powerful signal directed at us (I assume he's correct but I don't know). Even that doesn't preclude finding an advanced civilization that's moved on from radio to quarfle transmissions, since they could reason that others might still use radio and so use that for their own SETI program. It's not completely far-fetched, since the little green men might be able to find Earth and see that it's in a life-supporting temperature zone, and so send signals our way. The numbers are still stacked against us though, since besides the timing, there could be billions of such planets. Anyway, my vote is keep doing SETI.
As far as radio goes, I think the idea is that most civilizations would pass through the radio phase, and at some point send out signals looking for other intelligence out there, just like we're doing. Or maybe just leak their equivalent of TV and radio into space, also like we're doing. We might not see what they're up to now, but the main purpose is to find out that they're there, not so much to communicate. Since after all it would be like: "hi" (10 million years pass) "hello, how are you?" (10 million years pass) "Fine thanks, my name is Steve, what's yours?" etc. So I think radio is appropriate, besides which we don't know what else to look for.
I think I've explained my original comment two or three times now, you can read one of those if you want to know what I was talking about. Explaining it again will probably not help.
I didn't say it was unreasonable, I said it depends on what the test is supposed to do. If it's not supposed to distinguish between performances above a certain level, then fine. Any number of people can get 100% and it's OK.
It may be a flaw because the test failed to distinguish as well as it could have between the person who's good at French and the one who's spectacular at it. If, however, that is not the goal of the test, then that's irrelevant. It just depends what the test is supposed to do.
That is true, that's another possible path to take. And from what I've seen most teachers don't take the approach I outlined. Which is just fine; I prefaced it with a qualification about what the test is for. If it's not for measuring and distinguishing between the performances of students compared to each other, then it's fine for people to ace it and even for everyone to get an A.
Analogy time!! You're grilling hot dogs, and they all get eaten (this is analogous to 100%). Well, did they all get eaten because you cooked exactly enough, or would people have eaten six more if they had been available? After everyone' done eating you want to have one hot dog left. That means everyone got as much as they wanted, but you didn't waste much. On a test you want the top performer to miss at least one question (there's no analog to a wasted hot dog as missing more than one question is OK).
I don't think that's the point at all. Firstly, I can use GPL software however I want. No restrictions. The GPL only restricts how I can distribute the software. Secondly, the rights you have have nothing to do with how much you paid for the software, rather they are specified by the license. If you violate the license, (IIUC) your rights revert to what you would have under copyright, which is less than the GPL grants you. I needn't complain about the restrictions on distributing GPL code, not because I didn't pay for it, but because the license is right there and it's my responsibility to know my rights. Also, if you legally obtain music or a movie for free rather than paying for it (for example the copyright holder is giving it away or it's public domain) does that reduce what rights you have in using it? Of course not. It's not about the money.
The joke was that you're entertained by printer supplies. And if you really are entertained by printer supplies, I think I really do feel sorry for you. Or maybe I'm jealous, I'm not sure.
I think by new and interesting software, he doesn't just mean adding features (some of which I'm sure you care about) but whole applications. It's possible if processors hadn't gotten any faster that (for example) Firefox would have come out months later because the developers had to spend that much time on their code to make it usable on slow hardware. Personally I would rather have the software available sooner, and go ahead and throw faster hardware at it. When a pretty decent desktop costs $500, and a really good one $1000, it's very much worth it to buy a new one every few years.
As for expense and scarcity, your comments may indicate that good software is scarce. Lots of people write software, but what percentage are really good at it? If we can have more software from the good developers by using faster processors, thus letting them spend more of their time writing new software rather than making their software run faster, I'd say that's a good thing.
Finally, response time. I would have hoped boot times would have gotten shorter by now. Apparently not, and that's a shame. But for pretty much everything else, it seems to me a modern computer does everything very quickly. Almost always much faster than I can begin to get impatient with it, and I don't even have a new machine. On my work computer, the only programs I have to really wait for to start up are Lotus Notes after I've rebooted (if I close and then later reopen it it's fast) and Eclipse. Everything else basically starts instantly. Other things I have to wait for include compiling (developers have been waiting on this since the invention of the stick, and it's much faster now than it used to be) and ripping DVDs, which you couldn't have even considered doing in any reasonable time when DVD-ROM drives first came out. Now I can rip a feature length movie in about 25 minutes, on the aforementioned not-new PC. So I just don't see what the fuss is about. In my experience - maybe yours is different - almost all software, open source and closed, is efficient enough to run just great on modern hardware, and that's good enough for me. If I can give up a little bit of response time here and there to gain more features, fewer bugs, more frequent updates, or more applications, sign me up.
Perhaps. It may be that on purpose is harder to clean up, or maybe if we have the will then we can make coal plants that don't produce such nasty stuff (other things besides just mercury). I really don't know which it is. One good thing about doing it on purpose is that it cannot be hidden. You might be able to obscure a nuclear material leak or coal power plant accident, but you cannot conceal the fact that we're burning coal to make electricity, and you cannot really conceal what it puts into the atmosphere from those who care to find out. Though I'm sure plenty of people would like to do just that, and whether there are enough people who care is also a question. In any event, we must do something about the coal - either figure out how to use it (more) cleanly, or figure out how to stop using it. I doubt either option will be easy, fast, or cheap (where fast is measured in something like 100 years or more IMHO).
I said accidents. We're burning coal on purpose.
Maybe because coal-mining accidents can't contaminate things for thousands of years to come. Just a guess.
And the Mormons, who use water.