Wouldn't the use of the world "Aerogel" sorta indicate that we're talking about a solid?
Or even the term "Material" in context...I mean..using this line of thought you're using, a vaccume is technically lighter, I mean, you didn't specify the lightest 'gas' after all.
Wait.. you want to put almost 100,000 people out of work that used to WORK FOR THE IRS!?
Yeah, that's excatly what we need. 50,000 people on the street with cardboard signs saying "Please give what you can, its tax deductible under city ordinance 41.4b, clause 2, section 4, paragraph 2.C"
To be fair, they're trying to make a point with Earth Hour. Weather you agree with it or not, really doesn't matter. They're attempting to, through action, bring awareness to their arguments. An hour without lights isn't going to save anything, but you'll note everyone talks about it. So sounds like it's working to me.
They are also encuraging the purchase of eletric vehicles. Sure there are bad points to them, but they're generally cleaner than a normal car, or at least will be/would be with more investment in things like efficent battery designs. Hard to do until they're a major player in the market, hence the wish to push them as an agenda item.
You could take pretty much any two points from any political group and look at them in a vacume and declare them idiots for wanting both. All you're proving is you listen to too much talking heads on TV rather than coming up with rational arguments.
And I dont even nessisarily agree with any of it, but at least I can see what they're trying to accomplish.
A vast majority of people, the whole concept is a huge waste of time. If someone wants to have more daylight hours in their work day, wakeup just before daylight. Why move the freaking clocks? It doesn't make any sense, and it never has. Hours are just a measurement, there's nothing that says you have to be asleep at 7am. If you want to get up early because you'll get more daylight for things you're doing, get up early!
Instead we have this system where we jump the time forward or back an hour, and it serves no prupuse. It's a waste of time and energy.
My point is more about how fake a review score has to be, to even do that.
I get people are upset because the servers wont even let them play the game, and I fully support people who are angry at EA over it, no question.
But how can you cut a games review in half, after the fact? Either they're riding the wave of hate and trying to keep it off themselves; which means you shouldn't trust their reviews because they're not being honest about what they are reviewing; or they're honestly saying the game is half as good as it was before the release; which means you shoulnd't trust their reviews because not not being honest about what they are reviewing.
An honest review should have come out saying the game was (for example) a 7/10, because of the possible issues the always-online DRM could cause, even if its a fantastic game. Still good, but be warned, there could be issues. It just highlights how unreal they're being with game reviews. a 9.5 out of 10 means its almost perfect, which is clearly absurd on the face of it. The scores are getting paid for, either over or under the table (or both) and clearly shouldn't be trusted.
An interesting point of view I haven't really heard before, at least put this way, but I see a major flaw with it.
The holding of a copywrite, or the releasing of such to the public domain, doesn't guarentee a right to profit, one way or another. Copywrite needs to stand on its own, profit is more of a supply/demand question that really shouldn't involve the law and how its written, short of sane regulations.
To copy a film and declare it fair because the producer made a profit, doesn't make any sense. It would be like syphoning gas from a hybrids gas tank, because it already gets good enough gas milage as is. The question isn't weather or not the driver of that car really needs all that gas, the question is weather or not the gas is theirs to begin with.
As with the gas, as with copywrite. Producing something and selling it clearly is a right we all have. The question is, does producing something give you a natural right to its existance? And if so, to what point does that hold true? Forever? Most here would argue that yes, you have a right to its existance, and therefore its ability to be copied/sold without your involvement, but not for very long. If someone takes something you made and sells it at a profit, you deserve some of that profit, but your kids dont.
Things get murky when you involve corporations; me working for someone and producing something for them, do they now own it, or do I? If they own it, for how long? Do I have any rights to it, even if I dont work there anymore?
The whole concept is broken currently, nothing short of a total redesign will fix the problems we're running into, in my opinion.
This isn't going to be popular, in particular around here, but here it is. Just because you choose to not copywrite something, doesn't mean anything.
If someone has copywrited something, by law, they hold the rights to it. They can do whatever they please, within the confines of the law. One of those things, as they currently stand, is to prevent someone, anyone, from copying it.
If you choose to not participate in IP law, that is your own choice. I applaud you for it, but it doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else, for something that is copywrited.
Now, all this said, I dont feel like people are attacking the right thing. Rather than saying "I have a right to copy and distribute this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" they should be saying "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever". A subtle difference, but very important. In the former, you're insisting that you have a right to something not yours, in the former you're aserting that its not theirs to begin with. The entire concept of copywrite is out of date and inconsistant with modern times, and needs to be rethought. That is where the fight needs to be, not at this silly level its at right now.
Considering I didn't buy the car from the state, this shouldn't suprise anyone. Course now that we've bailed them all out, im not sure where that might stand at this point, but that's a completly different question.
If you own the media, but license the content, that means you should be able to request a new copy of the media, at cost of the media, not the license of the content that you've already paid. Oddly, this isn't an option either, so your argument is false in two different cases.
I dont know about you, but the digital copies of books I own are all chalk full of defects. Missing words, incorrect words, sentences in the wrong order even in a few cases. Doesn't seem to impact the market value when they sold it to me, that's for sure...
Or you could read the product descriptions before clicking the 1-click purchase button and save yourself a lot of headache....oh shit, thats why they patented that!
I feel like nobody is understanding anyone else in this cluster of an argument, including you.
No, this isn't like Ace Hardware selling a hose at 20% under market value to get you to walk into the store. Nothing of the sort.
Buying a subsidized phone means you're not buying the hardware at market value, you're getting the hardware under condition of a contract that is designed to over time reimburse the merchant for the value of the phone (and then some). Good for you because you get the phone right now for less than buying it outright, and good for them because they get a contract to make their money back over time, and then some, hence profit.
That's all fine and good. If someone doesn't fulfill the contract they are required to pay an early termination fee that should cover the cost of the actual phone. So far so good.
The problem people are having is that Unlocking the phone is illegal for anyone to do except the cell phone company. If I choose to unlock my phone, but still pay the contract I agreed to, who cares? The carrier is still making their profit. After the contract, same deal, why is ONLY THE CARRIER allowed to unlock the phone? This doesn't make sense.
People are buying their phones, either under contract or not. That shouldn't affect the unlocking of a cellphone. It has nothing to do with the contract, thats a completly seperate issue, but still involved. The carrier should not be allowed to ever say "NO" to me wanting to unlock my hardware, its mine, I own it. I may still owe on it under contract, but its still mine. Long as we continue to make payments on the cell phone plans, or pay the early termination fee, the locked status of the phone should have nothing to do with it. If I wanted, I should be allowed to term the contract early, and switch carriers. Right now the carrier could stop me from doing so, and that's the problem. Weather they are or not is not the question, the ability for them to do so is enough to cause concern because it will happen. Its just a matter of time.
To be fair, there was a time where travel to China from the UK was considered impossibly far, taking months of time assuming you didn't get killed along the way.
Then there was the giant, impassible ocean that went so far over the horizion we were pretty sure it was the edge of the world.
Humans have this funny way of looking at something, going "Oh geez, yeah forget that!" and end up passing it off as common place some years later. I suspect humans will someday explore the stars, if we dont kill ourselves off first. The only thing that can stand in our way is ourselves.
I'd think a better way of looking at it is he used to drive an old beater. Got sick of it, and bought a used Jeep. The used Jeep comes with a spot for a spare tire, and Jeep realized he might at some point need a spare tire, so they sent him one, then charged him full price for it. He has no intention of using a spare tire, see he's got this cell phone now and if his tire goes flat he'll call AAA. At least he would have but he ended up cancling his cell phone plan over these BS Charges AT&T was trying to charge......Wait a second...
I have no background on this kind of thing so i'm sure someone will come along here and happily correct me if i'm wrong, but the link you provide about Sputtering doesn't seem to have anything to do with what they're doing here.
They're using Sputtering, but in a new way. I'd consider that experimental for most pratical purpuses. One can make a fire and demonstrate quite easily that boiling water produces steam. However when Heron played around with the idea and invented a (rather impratical but somewhat functional) steam engine, i'd say he was working with something experimental.
Your argument is flawed, because you still dont seem to understand what is going on.
Customer A wants Cell Phone X, Company B offers the phone at say 100 dollars and a 2 year contract. You can purchase this phone for 599 elsewhere if you so choose, and use it more or less anywhere. But, if you go with company B you get the Phone X for only 100 dollars. ON CONDITION you then have a 2 year service contract, usually with several options depending on things like data rates and call minutes.
Of course the company 'wants' you to use their offer, but by agreeing with it its no longer a want, its now a contract. Part of that contract is you get to use the phone now, for 100 dollars. They make up the difference between the 100 and 599 (though I suspect they can get it for less) with the service contract, over those two years.
Whats happening here is they're saying that if you do something with that cell phone they dont like, they can now sue you for half a million dollars and throw you in prision. Frankly, I wont be buying cellphones anymore from anyone long as this holds true, i'll go buy my own phone. No service contract could possibly make the threat of indentured servitude and prision time worth the risk.
No, nobody has a right to unilaterally decide that someone has or has not broken the law. That is why we have a right to trial by jury. It is both a constitutional right and a MORAL RIGHT to have that day in court, no matter how 'odvious' you may feel it is that they are guilty.
If utilizing that right is too much for the court, then maybe that should tell people something about how we utilize the court.
I worked with a butcher for a number of years after high school, learned a lot of useful stuff from the old bastard (he was and still is one of the most horrible people i've ever met, but that's a different story).
Ground Chuck, used to be, 80/20. 80% meat, 20% fat. This is pretty good, and most people are happy with it. Ground Round is usually closer to 85/15 or 90/10. Again, good stuff.
I dont buy ground meat from grocerie stores anymore. Most of them dont give you a meat/fat ratio, and the few that do horrify me...60/40 i've seen. I've never seen a 50/50 but my lord, why bother at that point? You'd be better off scraping deer off the highway for all the taste and flavor you'll get out of that grimy mess of fat.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't the use of the world "Aerogel" sorta indicate that we're talking about a solid?
Or even the term "Material" in context...I mean..using this line of thought you're using, a vaccume is technically lighter, I mean, you didn't specify the lightest 'gas' after all.
Wait.. you want to put almost 100,000 people out of work that used to WORK FOR THE IRS!?
Yeah, that's excatly what we need. 50,000 people on the street with cardboard signs saying "Please give what you can, its tax deductible under city ordinance 41.4b, clause 2, section 4, paragraph 2.C"
To be fair, they're trying to make a point with Earth Hour. Weather you agree with it or not, really doesn't matter. They're attempting to, through action, bring awareness to their arguments. An hour without lights isn't going to save anything, but you'll note everyone talks about it. So sounds like it's working to me.
They are also encuraging the purchase of eletric vehicles. Sure there are bad points to them, but they're generally cleaner than a normal car, or at least will be/would be with more investment in things like efficent battery designs. Hard to do until they're a major player in the market, hence the wish to push them as an agenda item.
You could take pretty much any two points from any political group and look at them in a vacume and declare them idiots for wanting both. All you're proving is you listen to too much talking heads on TV rather than coming up with rational arguments.
And I dont even nessisarily agree with any of it, but at least I can see what they're trying to accomplish.
I honestly have no idea what you mean.
A vast majority of people, the whole concept is a huge waste of time. If someone wants to have more daylight hours in their work day, wakeup just before daylight. Why move the freaking clocks? It doesn't make any sense, and it never has. Hours are just a measurement, there's nothing that says you have to be asleep at 7am. If you want to get up early because you'll get more daylight for things you're doing, get up early!
Instead we have this system where we jump the time forward or back an hour, and it serves no prupuse. It's a waste of time and energy.
So its unauthorized access to a private server. Big deal. Still not 'hacking'.
My point is more about how fake a review score has to be, to even do that.
I get people are upset because the servers wont even let them play the game, and I fully support people who are angry at EA over it, no question.
But how can you cut a games review in half, after the fact? Either they're riding the wave of hate and trying to keep it off themselves; which means you shouldn't trust their reviews because they're not being honest about what they are reviewing; or they're honestly saying the game is half as good as it was before the release; which means you shoulnd't trust their reviews because not not being honest about what they are reviewing.
An honest review should have come out saying the game was (for example) a 7/10, because of the possible issues the always-online DRM could cause, even if its a fantastic game. Still good, but be warned, there could be issues. It just highlights how unreal they're being with game reviews. a 9.5 out of 10 means its almost perfect, which is clearly absurd on the face of it. The scores are getting paid for, either over or under the table (or both) and clearly shouldn't be trusted.
I'm celebrating pi every day I can... and stop calling me Shirley!
...Polygon's reviewer downgraded their initial review from a 9.5 to a 4.
Wow...if that doesn't tell you something about how the game was reviewed, nothing will.
An interesting point of view I haven't really heard before, at least put this way, but I see a major flaw with it.
The holding of a copywrite, or the releasing of such to the public domain, doesn't guarentee a right to profit, one way or another. Copywrite needs to stand on its own, profit is more of a supply/demand question that really shouldn't involve the law and how its written, short of sane regulations.
To copy a film and declare it fair because the producer made a profit, doesn't make any sense. It would be like syphoning gas from a hybrids gas tank, because it already gets good enough gas milage as is. The question isn't weather or not the driver of that car really needs all that gas, the question is weather or not the gas is theirs to begin with.
As with the gas, as with copywrite. Producing something and selling it clearly is a right we all have. The question is, does producing something give you a natural right to its existance? And if so, to what point does that hold true? Forever? Most here would argue that yes, you have a right to its existance, and therefore its ability to be copied/sold without your involvement, but not for very long. If someone takes something you made and sells it at a profit, you deserve some of that profit, but your kids dont.
Things get murky when you involve corporations; me working for someone and producing something for them, do they now own it, or do I? If they own it, for how long? Do I have any rights to it, even if I dont work there anymore?
The whole concept is broken currently, nothing short of a total redesign will fix the problems we're running into, in my opinion.
This isn't going to be popular, in particular around here, but here it is. Just because you choose to not copywrite something, doesn't mean anything.
If someone has copywrited something, by law, they hold the rights to it. They can do whatever they please, within the confines of the law. One of those things, as they currently stand, is to prevent someone, anyone, from copying it.
If you choose to not participate in IP law, that is your own choice. I applaud you for it, but it doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else, for something that is copywrited.
Now, all this said, I dont feel like people are attacking the right thing. Rather than saying "I have a right to copy and distribute this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever" they should be saying "You dont have a right to keep me from copying and distributing this thing/concept/object/widget/whatever". A subtle difference, but very important. In the former, you're insisting that you have a right to something not yours, in the former you're aserting that its not theirs to begin with. The entire concept of copywrite is out of date and inconsistant with modern times, and needs to be rethought. That is where the fight needs to be, not at this silly level its at right now.
What do you mean it doesn't work? Clearly it works, they're getting paid! Its working exactly as it was expected to.
Oh, you mean it doesn't work for everyone else? Why does ICANN care? They got paid.
Considering I didn't buy the car from the state, this shouldn't suprise anyone. Course now that we've bailed them all out, im not sure where that might stand at this point, but that's a completly different question.
If you own the media, but license the content, that means you should be able to request a new copy of the media, at cost of the media, not the license of the content that you've already paid. Oddly, this isn't an option either, so your argument is false in two different cases.
I dont know about you, but the digital copies of books I own are all chalk full of defects. Missing words, incorrect words, sentences in the wrong order even in a few cases. Doesn't seem to impact the market value when they sold it to me, that's for sure...
It seems you're the one unable to understand english. Read it again, here i'll help.
immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.
Or you could read the product descriptions before clicking the 1-click purchase button and save yourself a lot of headache. ...oh shit, thats why they patented that!
What I find hilarious about the entire thing is that, Amazon will never find exactly what the customer is searching for.
Know why?
The manufacturer refuses to sell their product on Amazon!! They then sue Amazon when they sugest something else. What in the...
I feel like nobody is understanding anyone else in this cluster of an argument, including you.
No, this isn't like Ace Hardware selling a hose at 20% under market value to get you to walk into the store. Nothing of the sort.
Buying a subsidized phone means you're not buying the hardware at market value, you're getting the hardware under condition of a contract that is designed to over time reimburse the merchant for the value of the phone (and then some). Good for you because you get the phone right now for less than buying it outright, and good for them because they get a contract to make their money back over time, and then some, hence profit.
That's all fine and good. If someone doesn't fulfill the contract they are required to pay an early termination fee that should cover the cost of the actual phone. So far so good.
The problem people are having is that Unlocking the phone is illegal for anyone to do except the cell phone company. If I choose to unlock my phone, but still pay the contract I agreed to, who cares? The carrier is still making their profit. After the contract, same deal, why is ONLY THE CARRIER allowed to unlock the phone? This doesn't make sense.
People are buying their phones, either under contract or not. That shouldn't affect the unlocking of a cellphone. It has nothing to do with the contract, thats a completly seperate issue, but still involved. The carrier should not be allowed to ever say "NO" to me wanting to unlock my hardware, its mine, I own it. I may still owe on it under contract, but its still mine. Long as we continue to make payments on the cell phone plans, or pay the early termination fee, the locked status of the phone should have nothing to do with it. If I wanted, I should be allowed to term the contract early, and switch carriers. Right now the carrier could stop me from doing so, and that's the problem. Weather they are or not is not the question, the ability for them to do so is enough to cause concern because it will happen. Its just a matter of time.
To be fair, there was a time where travel to China from the UK was considered impossibly far, taking months of time assuming you didn't get killed along the way.
Then there was the giant, impassible ocean that went so far over the horizion we were pretty sure it was the edge of the world.
Humans have this funny way of looking at something, going "Oh geez, yeah forget that!" and end up passing it off as common place some years later. I suspect humans will someday explore the stars, if we dont kill ourselves off first. The only thing that can stand in our way is ourselves.
So he buys gas then?
I'd think a better way of looking at it is he used to drive an old beater. Got sick of it, and bought a used Jeep. The used Jeep comes with a spot for a spare tire, and Jeep realized he might at some point need a spare tire, so they sent him one, then charged him full price for it. He has no intention of using a spare tire, see he's got this cell phone now and if his tire goes flat he'll call AAA. At least he would have but he ended up cancling his cell phone plan over these BS Charges AT&T was trying to charge... ...Wait a second...
I have no background on this kind of thing so i'm sure someone will come along here and happily correct me if i'm wrong, but the link you provide about Sputtering doesn't seem to have anything to do with what they're doing here.
They're using Sputtering, but in a new way. I'd consider that experimental for most pratical purpuses. One can make a fire and demonstrate quite easily that boiling water produces steam. However when Heron played around with the idea and invented a (rather impratical but somewhat functional) steam engine, i'd say he was working with something experimental.
Your argument is flawed, because you still dont seem to understand what is going on.
Customer A wants Cell Phone X, Company B offers the phone at say 100 dollars and a 2 year contract. You can purchase this phone for 599 elsewhere if you so choose, and use it more or less anywhere. But, if you go with company B you get the Phone X for only 100 dollars. ON CONDITION you then have a 2 year service contract, usually with several options depending on things like data rates and call minutes.
Of course the company 'wants' you to use their offer, but by agreeing with it its no longer a want, its now a contract. Part of that contract is you get to use the phone now, for 100 dollars. They make up the difference between the 100 and 599 (though I suspect they can get it for less) with the service contract, over those two years.
Whats happening here is they're saying that if you do something with that cell phone they dont like, they can now sue you for half a million dollars and throw you in prision. Frankly, I wont be buying cellphones anymore from anyone long as this holds true, i'll go buy my own phone. No service contract could possibly make the threat of indentured servitude and prision time worth the risk.
No, nobody has a right to unilaterally decide that someone has or has not broken the law. That is why we have a right to trial by jury. It is both a constitutional right and a MORAL RIGHT to have that day in court, no matter how 'odvious' you may feel it is that they are guilty.
If utilizing that right is too much for the court, then maybe that should tell people something about how we utilize the court.
I worked with a butcher for a number of years after high school, learned a lot of useful stuff from the old bastard (he was and still is one of the most horrible people i've ever met, but that's a different story).
Ground Chuck, used to be, 80/20. 80% meat, 20% fat. This is pretty good, and most people are happy with it. Ground Round is usually closer to 85/15 or 90/10. Again, good stuff.
I dont buy ground meat from grocerie stores anymore. Most of them dont give you a meat/fat ratio, and the few that do horrify me...60/40 i've seen. I've never seen a 50/50 but my lord, why bother at that point? You'd be better off scraping deer off the highway for all the taste and flavor you'll get out of that grimy mess of fat.
Correct.
In the first case, you just make it thicker/stronger. In the later case, the problem is you need to make it thinner. Much thinner.
Every now and then I see posts like this and wonder why someone with that kind of an anger issue is allowed anywhere near a computer.
Chill out.