Copyright exists because criminals have claimed to own everything, and enforce that claim with guns. They then give you made up little services you can do and trade with them, like make a painting or give them a blowjob. They pretend that the crap you make is meaningful property, so you can pretend to trade your made up crap with them for some food and a place to live. But it's all made up, and the moment that the chips are down, you're holding your stupid little tickets and they hold everything and you're a supplicant just like you always were.
That's just because among certain people, "entitlements" is a codeword for "welfare" and "affirmative action", which has its own set of negative connotations among those people.
I think the comparison is apt, personally. I say that as one of the individuals who these "entitlements" are supposedly benefiting.
Can you try calling them entitlements? When you call them rights, you play into the hands of those you philosophically oppose. Telling someone you want to take away a group of peoples rights always sounds bad and closes the discussion before it's begun. Tell someone you want to take away a group of peoples entitlements and suddenly they want to discuss the merits of your proposal.
Not to mention the Trollish straw-man assumption that each individual has the power to restructure their government.
Authority comes from respect for authority. It can turn on a dime. The moment you refuse to participate, it gets weaker. Why do you think Dubya made his historic appeal to everyone to "keep shopping"? You know, if you hadn't listened when he said that, it would have happened already.
The problem is, games are not about AI and flashy graphics, no matter how much money grubbing publishers want em to be. They're about friendly interaction with your peers. That's why more people use computers to play cards with each other than the latest flashy crap to come down the pipe.
You know, if us suckers would stop governing our daily affairs with money, we wouldn't have the problem. Giving someone money is like handing them your voice in society. It's like a vote that you never get to take back even when you realize you've been conned. Which means conning suckers and using them harshly is the number one mechanism to achieve power. Is that what you want to support?
The state isn't supposed to rule you. The state is all of you speaking together with one voice. Stop being cowards and claim your birthright.
Everything is relative. Inefficiency is often acceptable when it reduces infrastructure requirements, preserves scarce materials, etc. The more remote the location, the more likely it is tolerable. When we start deploying space based power generation infrastructure, are you going to run an extension cord?
But I think the question is why doesn't the government fund research outside of war? I know people didn't like McCain but he did want to fund research and offer reewards for things like new battery technology. Why doesn't Obama?
Why don't you restructure your government so you're involved in the decision making rather than handing your political power off to yet another Tyrant and wondering why he doesn't do stuff? You know you're going to be held accountable for the things he is doing, right?
Do you know how incredibly inefficient a power broadcast system would be?
Do you know the rate at which said power broadcast would drop off with regards to range?
Simple physics.
Do you know how incredibly inefficient an engine that operates through conflagration is?
Do you know the rate at which said power broadcast would drop off relative to detonation?
Simple physics.
No one is ever going to use a combustion engine.
The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it might makes possible: the first observation of something analogous to Hawking radiation. The Theory of Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Theoretically, were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream of phononic radiation away from an acoustic black hole would be the first observation of anything even vaguely resembling Hawking radiation. The team hasn't actually achieved any of this though. It can't be long now before they or their numerous competitors make this leap. Unless their hypothesis is totally wrong, which is entirely possible. But that doesn't sound particularly impressive, so we'll just forget about that bit...
I think of it as being able to see the train coming, but not being able to convince the convicts attached to your ankle to get the fuck off the tracks.
Wedgies in high school had zero penalties. Why don't you pay me $15 a month and I'll come over and give you one for old times sake.
It actually did. The person doing it would get in trouble with the school. You're comparing apples to oranges, sir.
Way to miss the bloody point... Deliverer of Wedgie is to WoW Killer as Recipient of Wedgie is to WoW Victim.
You didn't do very well on the standardized tests, did you?
Why? There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he does. Death in wow has zero penalties, and it's absolutely within the game mechanics to grief people like he does.
Wedgies in high school had zero penalties. Why don't you pay me $15 a month and I'll come over and give you one for old times sake.
If you want to get enough water to live out of that mug, I'd suggest you dig a pit, put the mug in the bottom of it, pile any vegetation you can get around the edges, piss in it for good measure, then secure your ground sheet over the top with rocks and use a pebble to make it slanted towards the middle. Actually produces quite a lot of water, you might want to use a cooking pot instead.
I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea. I prefer the later. But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for. I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.
Well, right, I think we're saying the same thing and agreeing:) The core of the problem was Debians requirement that they should be able to ship unapproved patches to Firefox and still call it Firefox. That makes no sense for any program that is trying to build a brand reputation. That's why I said an open source "app store" would have a very different philosophy to an open source "repository" where the understanding is that you can "apt-get install firefox" and possibly get something that is not what the Firefox developers actually created.
The purpose of Debian is to provide a system that has no legal obligations baked in. There might be technical things missing that you want to add that require some extra steps or permissions or whatever, but if you use stock Debian, you have no need to consult with anyone under the sun. That makes it slightly less convenient from a "just works" perspective sometimes, but it also allows certain groups of people to save millions of dollars in administration and legal advice, and it removes uncertainty about liability from your plans. You may not want to use it, but it's still probably the most important distribution in existence because it makes so many other things possible.
In contrast, Linux distro repositories have a different philosophy:
They reserve the right not only to reject your software for any reason, but also to modify it via patches as well. The user is not informed that any patching has taken place. Sometimes this patching improves the software, but sometimes it totally breaks it. There are many examples of this (eg openssl).
This silent tampering is extensive and distributors are loathe to give it up. When Mozilla decided they didn't want the Firefox brand tarnished by extensive Debian patches, Debian decided they'd rather rename the product "Iceweasel" than give up this control.
Distros are not fresh. Typically the software that was around at the time of release is frozen and updates from upstream are not made available, unless they are security updates. Even then some distros prefer to "backport" security fixes, rather than simply follow upstream versioning. This results in a steady stream of useless bug reports to upstream for problems that were long since fixed. Once again, the developers are not in control of their own software.
If Novell are actually interested in the app store approach, they're going to have to convince the suse developers to give up that level of control and make automated import of upstream binaries the norm. No more "packagers" for applications - that role will have to be obsoleted. And then they'll have to convince upstream developers to actually submit those binaries.
You're missing one important thing in your little speech. Repositories are not mutually exclusive. Using a single repository is not the standard. Having multiple repositories is the standard. Setting up your own repository and having complete control over your distribution is entirely practical, and should be well within the capacities of anyone who is technically skilled enough to write software.
People on the "left" and some environmentalists seem to always think economy is already a Pareto-optimal system.
Our economic systems are administered using a abstract simulation of reality, not reality itself.
These systems only functions in situations where there is scarcity. In situations where there is abundance, they become defunct.
Questions of motives aside, in the name of preserving the administrative system, wealth is intentionally destroyed and scarcity artificially created. Commonplace thing that happens every day, not something subject to debate. It happens.
When it happens, it amounts to a systemic cost, an administrative overhead.
To judge the true productive benefit of this system over another system, the systemic costs must be weighed against the productivity gains.
If the wealth destroyed to make the system work is less than the extra wealth created by the efficiencies of the system, then it is a net loss.
The less natural abundance there is, the more useful our system is. Conversely, the greater our capacity to create abundance becomes, the less useful our system is.
This means that our system is best used as a tool, to help elevate people from scarcity into abundance, after which our system should be set aside until circumstances change for the worse and we need to pull it out again. We should wish for it never to happen.
How does this relate to what you said? It relates because all this wealth destruction is done so we can collectively pretend that we live in a Pareto-optimal system and govern ourselves accordingly. THAT is what the people on the left are pissed off about, even if they aren't necessarily articulate enough to express it.
Social peers is all to often a nice waying of saying "hang out with the half wits"
It is a nice way of saying hang out with the half wits. But the thing you're missing is, often the alternative is "hang out with the half wits who are sensitive about it and also outweigh you by a large margin".
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong. About everything.
Copyright exists because criminals have claimed to own everything, and enforce that claim with guns. They then give you made up little services you can do and trade with them, like make a painting or give them a blowjob. They pretend that the crap you make is meaningful property, so you can pretend to trade your made up crap with them for some food and a place to live. But it's all made up, and the moment that the chips are down, you're holding your stupid little tickets and they hold everything and you're a supplicant just like you always were.
You are indentured servants and slaves.
That's just because among certain people, "entitlements" is a codeword for "welfare" and "affirmative action", which has its own set of negative connotations among those people.
I think the comparison is apt, personally. I say that as one of the individuals who these "entitlements" are supposedly benefiting.
Can you try calling them entitlements? When you call them rights, you play into the hands of those you philosophically oppose. Telling someone you want to take away a group of peoples rights always sounds bad and closes the discussion before it's begun. Tell someone you want to take away a group of peoples entitlements and suddenly they want to discuss the merits of your proposal.
Motive: They're trying to seize control of their botnet back from the Chinese.
Don't worry... it's Windows only. Therefore, the Chinese botnet will never be larger than the American botnet.
Though, if Balmer makes good on his threat, the worlds largest botnet will belong to... the Irish?
Not to mention the Trollish straw-man assumption that each individual has the power to restructure their government.
Authority comes from respect for authority. It can turn on a dime. The moment you refuse to participate, it gets weaker. Why do you think Dubya made his historic appeal to everyone to "keep shopping"? You know, if you hadn't listened when he said that, it would have happened already.
The problem is, games are not about AI and flashy graphics, no matter how much money grubbing publishers want em to be. They're about friendly interaction with your peers. That's why more people use computers to play cards with each other than the latest flashy crap to come down the pipe.
You know, if us suckers would stop governing our daily affairs with money, we wouldn't have the problem. Giving someone money is like handing them your voice in society. It's like a vote that you never get to take back even when you realize you've been conned. Which means conning suckers and using them harshly is the number one mechanism to achieve power. Is that what you want to support?
The state isn't supposed to rule you. The state is all of you speaking together with one voice. Stop being cowards and claim your birthright.
Everything is relative. Inefficiency is often acceptable when it reduces infrastructure requirements, preserves scarce materials, etc. The more remote the location, the more likely it is tolerable. When we start deploying space based power generation infrastructure, are you going to run an extension cord?
But I think the question is why doesn't the government fund research outside of war? I know people didn't like McCain but he did want to fund research and offer reewards for things like new battery technology. Why doesn't Obama?
Why don't you restructure your government so you're involved in the decision making rather than handing your political power off to yet another Tyrant and wondering why he doesn't do stuff? You know you're going to be held accountable for the things he is doing, right?
Do you know how incredibly inefficient a power broadcast system would be? Do you know the rate at which said power broadcast would drop off with regards to range? Simple physics.
Do you know how incredibly inefficient an engine that operates through conflagration is? Do you know the rate at which said power broadcast would drop off relative to detonation? Simple physics. No one is ever going to use a combustion engine.
Here, I'll fix it.
The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it might makes possible: the first observation of something analogous to Hawking radiation. The Theory of Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Theoretically, were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream of phononic radiation away from an acoustic black hole would be the first observation of anything even vaguely resembling Hawking radiation. The team hasn't actually achieved any of this though. It can't be long now before they or their numerous competitors make this leap. Unless their hypothesis is totally wrong, which is entirely possible. But that doesn't sound particularly impressive, so we'll just forget about that bit...
And, I am always, always right. How annoying.
I think of it as being able to see the train coming, but not being able to convince the convicts attached to your ankle to get the fuck off the tracks.
Wedgies in high school had zero penalties. Why don't you pay me $15 a month and I'll come over and give you one for old times sake. It actually did. The person doing it would get in trouble with the school. You're comparing apples to oranges, sir.
Way to miss the bloody point... Deliverer of Wedgie is to WoW Killer as Recipient of Wedgie is to WoW Victim.
You didn't do very well on the standardized tests, did you?
Why? There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he does. Death in wow has zero penalties, and it's absolutely within the game mechanics to grief people like he does.
Wedgies in high school had zero penalties. Why don't you pay me $15 a month and I'll come over and give you one for old times sake.
Note to those who may want to try this at home: piss in the *vegetation*, not the mug...
Stop that. I'm planting seeds for the Darwin awards.
If you want to get enough water to live out of that mug, I'd suggest you dig a pit, put the mug in the bottom of it, pile any vegetation you can get around the edges, piss in it for good measure, then secure your ground sheet over the top with rocks and use a pebble to make it slanted towards the middle. Actually produces quite a lot of water, you might want to use a cooking pot instead.
It doesn't use condensation from the air. It exposes a hygroscopic fluid to the air, then removes the water through distillation.
I've found Microsoft's Live Mesh to be an idea in search of an application... whereas Google's product seems more the reverse, an application in search of an idea. I prefer the later. But also, I have no idea what Live Mesh is for. I don't know what the thing is supposed to do.
More like a trap in search of a sucker...
Well, right, I think we're saying the same thing and agreeing :) The core of the problem was Debians requirement that they should be able to ship unapproved patches to Firefox and still call it Firefox. That makes no sense for any program that is trying to build a brand reputation. That's why I said an open source "app store" would have a very different philosophy to an open source "repository" where the understanding is that you can "apt-get install firefox" and possibly get something that is not what the Firefox developers actually created.
The purpose of Debian is to provide a system that has no legal obligations baked in. There might be technical things missing that you want to add that require some extra steps or permissions or whatever, but if you use stock Debian, you have no need to consult with anyone under the sun. That makes it slightly less convenient from a "just works" perspective sometimes, but it also allows certain groups of people to save millions of dollars in administration and legal advice, and it removes uncertainty about liability from your plans. You may not want to use it, but it's still probably the most important distribution in existence because it makes so many other things possible.
I thought the same thing.
In contrast, Linux distro repositories have a different philosophy: They reserve the right not only to reject your software for any reason, but also to modify it via patches as well. The user is not informed that any patching has taken place. Sometimes this patching improves the software, but sometimes it totally breaks it. There are many examples of this (eg openssl). This silent tampering is extensive and distributors are loathe to give it up. When Mozilla decided they didn't want the Firefox brand tarnished by extensive Debian patches, Debian decided they'd rather rename the product "Iceweasel" than give up this control.
Distros are not fresh. Typically the software that was around at the time of release is frozen and updates from upstream are not made available, unless they are security updates. Even then some distros prefer to "backport" security fixes, rather than simply follow upstream versioning. This results in a steady stream of useless bug reports to upstream for problems that were long since fixed. Once again, the developers are not in control of their own software.
If Novell are actually interested in the app store approach, they're going to have to convince the suse developers to give up that level of control and make automated import of upstream binaries the norm. No more "packagers" for applications - that role will have to be obsoleted. And then they'll have to convince upstream developers to actually submit those binaries.
You're missing one important thing in your little speech. Repositories are not mutually exclusive. Using a single repository is not the standard. Having multiple repositories is the standard. Setting up your own repository and having complete control over your distribution is entirely practical, and should be well within the capacities of anyone who is technically skilled enough to write software.
If it wasn't for the simulators and the Japanese men masturbating to them, things like this would never have happened.
People on the "left" and some environmentalists seem to always think economy is already a Pareto-optimal system.
Our economic systems are administered using a abstract simulation of reality, not reality itself.
These systems only functions in situations where there is scarcity. In situations where there is abundance, they become defunct.
Questions of motives aside, in the name of preserving the administrative system, wealth is intentionally destroyed and scarcity artificially created. Commonplace thing that happens every day, not something subject to debate. It happens.
When it happens, it amounts to a systemic cost, an administrative overhead.
To judge the true productive benefit of this system over another system, the systemic costs must be weighed against the productivity gains.
If the wealth destroyed to make the system work is less than the extra wealth created by the efficiencies of the system, then it is a net loss.
The less natural abundance there is, the more useful our system is. Conversely, the greater our capacity to create abundance becomes, the less useful our system is.
This means that our system is best used as a tool, to help elevate people from scarcity into abundance, after which our system should be set aside until circumstances change for the worse and we need to pull it out again. We should wish for it never to happen.
How does this relate to what you said? It relates because all this wealth destruction is done so we can collectively pretend that we live in a Pareto-optimal system and govern ourselves accordingly. THAT is what the people on the left are pissed off about, even if they aren't necessarily articulate enough to express it.
Social peers is all to often a nice waying of saying "hang out with the half wits"
It is a nice way of saying hang out with the half wits. But the thing you're missing is, often the alternative is "hang out with the half wits who are sensitive about it and also outweigh you by a large margin".