Then you don't use any gas, and the world is saved! Of course, your food spoils before it can get to you, but you didn't waste any petroleum!
0 watts is better than >0 watts, but only if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL.
But it's not. If you turn off your computer instead of leaving it on, that affects many things other than just how much power you are using while the computer is off. It means you have a boot squence where you use a *LOT* of power. And where you do a LOT of reading/writing to/from disk. And you have to sit around and wait for your computer to boot. And then reopen everything you closed when you shut-down.
Saving $24/year in power is not worth spending $25/year on failed hard drives. Or on time lost turning your computer on and off again. Or on the power you use booting the thing back up.
These forgeries sell for tens of thousands of dollars, and are undetectable from image analysis, they are printed from the same plates as the originals and are 100% identical. But they're fakes by any standard, since they were not authorized by the artist and are not numbered.
They are clearly only fakes by SOME standards, particularly the standard of an artist who doesn't want someone profiting off their work.
If I have a Unforgiven (the song) on CD, and I copy it but-for-bit to my hard drive, and then play it, in it's 100% identical digital form, is it not still Unforgiven? Same song. Sounds the same. And certainly no-one would say it was fake.
If I have Unforgigen (the movie) on DVD, and I play it on a really crappy black and white TV, where the picture is definitely not 100% identical to the film print, you still wouldn't call it a fake.
And if you have a process that creates a print, and the process creates 100% identical copies (or at least, the copies made by one person using the process have the same set of variations as copies made by another person using the process), then all copies are real. Making the plates is the art, pulling the level to put out 101 copies instead of 100 copies isn't any different than pressing the green button on the copier. Actually, it is different, because you're getting an original printed copy instead of a photocopy, which isn't a perfect copy.
If you have to items that are the same in every way, and the only difference between them is the information you believe in your head to be true, you're paying a lot of money for nothing. I'll lie to you for free.
Do you really think that seeing a full-sized copy of "David" is the same as walking into the room that contains the original one that Michelangelo personally touched with his own hands?
Of course not. In one of those cases, your jet lag is much worse.
The computing power of a Beowulf Cluster of teens, where T is the power of one teen and n is the number of teens in the network, is T^(1/n).
Even worse, if you connect your cluster to the internet, the effective computing power becomes T^(1/n)/B, where B is the bandwidth of the connection.
There is a special exception to this, however, that takes into account the Mischief Coefficient. For any problem, P, with a fractional mischief component of M, the expected power becomes T^(1/(1-M)n).
As we can see, for any problem with a Mischief Component of 1, the power of the cluster becomes infinite. In fact, using my Beowulf Cluster of Teens, I was able to determine that the more teens you have, the more infinite their power gets. For example, according to my BCoT, if you have 100 teens, your cluster would be 10 times more infinitely powerful than an infinitely powerful cluster of only 10 teens.
The real question is why objects would disappear, not why they wouldn't. In the real world, everything has to go somewhere and the idea that you can tear something apart at the molecular level and send it somewhere in a "beam" is absurd.
E=mc2 and all that.
You can change matter into energy. You can move energy. You can change energy into matter. Granted, we can't do any of those things very well or efficiently, but you could certainly pulverize matter into energy, send the energy somewhere, then make it into matter again, and thus not have any matter left over at the origin.
Internet danger beats junk food, phone scums, abduction/rape by stranger on the street. In some areas it'll beat assault by classmates. And that's just PHYSICAL danger.
But I'm not talking about just physical danger. I think when you put kids in an environment where they are frequently SOLICITED by people 10-40 years older than they are, you are exposing those kids to damage, just notobvious, physical damage. And it's damage that's easy to avoid: Don't let kids have profiles anywhere, and perhaps don't let them have instant messengers at all.
I would bet that slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators.
This may be true, but I would bet that online contact is a more frequent cause of harm to teens than slip and fall in the shower. It's not as obvious, because it's not physical, but it's there.
I grew up on computers, from 10 years old and up, talking to people online back when it consisted of paging the SysOp for a one-on-one conversation. (And I'm sorry for all the SysOps I so incessently annoyed when I was 10.) And I am really starting to think that what we need is the equivalent of VChips for computers. Something that doesn't let kids have a profile, anywhere, and something that doesn't let them install instant messaging programs.
And to protect our standard of living, we should automate or offshore any job we can.
Labor is expensive. The more jobs we can eliminate doing manufacturing and service with automation, and the more jobs we can give to people who are otherwise idly starving abroad, the more people we will have available at home to become nurses and provide all that healthcare people seem to want for free.
The middle class isn't getting poorer. The middle class is just demanding that more and more of their income is spent on healthcare. We'd all make a lot more money if we were willing to settle for the same drugs and treatments available to us in 1960.
Look, we all gotta pay taxes. I'm an empoyee, and I pay income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes; a property owner, so I pay property taxes; a business owner who pays income taxes on that......There's no reason that the economic activity of gambling online should not ALSO be taxed.
The problem here is not that government is trying to protect a tax base. The problem is that, despite the online gambling industry pretty much BEGGING to pay taxes, the government is trying to ban something other people want to do.
This effort has nothing to do with taxes. It's the result of a combination of social 'it's bad for people and we shouldn't let it happen' coupled with lobbying by established gambling interests.
If the government WAS trying to preserve it's tax base, it would REGULATE online gambling. They would get a LOT more tax money from taxing online gambling than they would from banning it.
Did you know that 99.9% of people being treated for cancer have cancer?
42% is surprising - but it's not surprising because it's high, it's surprising because it's low. Wouldn't you expect that 100% of the people complaining about problem with WGA would have genuine software?
If telling people that you told me that you like to have sexual relations with farm animals is not actionable, than certainly telling people that you asked me about information regarding sex with farm animals isn't actionable either. (Assuming, of course, that you had actually done both, if I just made it up, then depending on the circumstances it would be actionable.)
AOL, like most ISPs, has a privacy agreement, which states when and how your information may be distributed. Most call this 'personally identifying' information. That would probably include search terms, especially when grouped by a unique identifier, that would personally identify you.
How AOL obtained that information (plain text over the internet or otherwise) is not relevant - if they agreed with you that they would not share it, then they can't share it.
What I'm curious to see here is most of these agreements also force binding arbitration - if that is the case here, can you even have a class action lawsuit based on the privacy agreement?
And if not, are there any actual LAWS violated here? I don't see any legal culpability. If you tell me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, and I tell someone else that you told me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, that wouldn't be actionable. And that's basically what happened here, only in a large volume: People told AOL what they wanted to seach for, and AOL then passed that information to others.
Unfortunate, yes, but there isn't any inherent legal obligation for a 3rd party to hold information you give them in confidence (with certain specific exceptions, like healthcare workers, grand juries, etc, of which AOL is none).
I have several friends in bands, and when I ask them what got them into their music, they never reply "because I want to make a profit". They want the world to enjoy their music
Really? My friends in bands say it's because musicians get all the chicks.
but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit.
Companies do this to avoid going out of business entirely, because if they competition does it and they don't, they can't compete.
And this is a GOOD thing. We have been shipping jobs overseas for decades. We have shipper far more jobs overseas than we even have people living in this country.
IF you believed the Unions, everybody would be unemployed - but this obviously isn't the case. Unemployment has remained relatively constant for decades. Everytime we ship a job overseas, *WE* get more stuff, for less money, and we get new jobs to replace those old jobs.
I thought Bi-partisan is willing to service both Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen?
Re:Nope, still not of any use...
on
USB Batteries
·
· Score: 1
However, if it's totally unavoidable that you're going to need to recharge batteries many times before getting back to your main base, half your arguement disappears.
No it doesn't. It's not possible to recharge the batteries many times before going back to the main base. It's not even possible to recharge them once - it takes 5 hours, and a laptop battery only lasts about 2 hours. Sure, you could carry more laptop batteries, but you could ALSO just carry more basic, non-USB rechargeable batteries. That'll get you a lot more power for the weight than the USB battery solution.
There is NO situation in which one of these USB batteries is better than a regular 2500mAh rechargable battery. Period.
And yet, we're still using about as much fuel as before the price hikes.
The phrase you are looking for is 'fungible commodity'.
In the short term, a certain amount of oil is produced every day, that gets refined into various products.
There is more than enough demand for oil to use up the supply. That's what establishes the price - if the demand for oil products is too high at a price, the price will go up. If demand at a price is too low, the price will go down.
So, if you tax oil products, what happens? Demand goes down. Price falls. So you end up with the same price for gas as you would have had without taxes - just more of the prize going to taxes. (Well, in a global market, what really happens is the price across the planet drops slightly and the oil products get sold elsewhere.)
In the *LONG* term, if you lower demand enough by taxing enough, the price people can sell oil products for (before tax) goes down, so it becomes less profitable to seek out new sources of oil. So less oil becomes available. Which... causes the price to go up! And now that the price is back up again, it becomes worthwhile to seek out harder-to-get oil.
In the real long term, you raise gas taxes because, as mentioned above, it takes most of the revenue from gas and puts it into the government's hands to waste appropriately. Since there is thus less economic motivation for people to sell gas, there is a comparatively bigger motivation for energy-producers to invest in energy-production technology that is not taxed, where they can keep more of the profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you don't use any gas, and the world is saved! Of course, your food spoils before it can get to you, but you didn't waste any petroleum!
0 watts is better than >0 watts, but only if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL.
But it's not. If you turn off your computer instead of leaving it on, that affects many things other than just how much power you are using while the computer is off. It means you have a boot squence where you use a *LOT* of power. And where you do a LOT of reading/writing to/from disk. And you have to sit around and wait for your computer to boot. And then reopen everything you closed when you shut-down.
Saving $24/year in power is not worth spending $25/year on failed hard drives. Or on time lost turning your computer on and off again. Or on the power you use booting the thing back up.
Is the value of a $100 bill the same, if it is visually identical to one issued by the US Treasury, but was printed by a counterfeiter?
If the $100 bill printed by the coutnerfeiter is identical enough, then yes, the value is the same.
These forgeries sell for tens of thousands of dollars, and are undetectable from image analysis, they are printed from the same plates as the originals and are 100% identical. But they're fakes by any standard, since they were not authorized by the artist and are not numbered.
They are clearly only fakes by SOME standards, particularly the standard of an artist who doesn't want someone profiting off their work.
If I have a Unforgiven (the song) on CD, and I copy it but-for-bit to my hard drive, and then play it, in it's 100% identical digital form, is it not still Unforgiven? Same song. Sounds the same. And certainly no-one would say it was fake.
If I have Unforgigen (the movie) on DVD, and I play it on a really crappy black and white TV, where the picture is definitely not 100% identical to the film print, you still wouldn't call it a fake.
And if you have a process that creates a print, and the process creates 100% identical copies (or at least, the copies made by one person using the process have the same set of variations as copies made by another person using the process), then all copies are real. Making the plates is the art, pulling the level to put out 101 copies instead of 100 copies isn't any different than pressing the green button on the copier. Actually, it is different, because you're getting an original printed copy instead of a photocopy, which isn't a perfect copy.
If you have to items that are the same in every way, and the only difference between them is the information you believe in your head to be true, you're paying a lot of money for nothing. I'll lie to you for free.
Do you really think that seeing a full-sized copy of "David" is the same as walking into the room that contains the original one that Michelangelo personally touched with his own hands?
Of course not. In one of those cases, your jet lag is much worse.
I have alway wondered why there is such a premium on "an original". Especially art.
If you had a smaller penis, you'd understand.
The computing power of a Beowulf Cluster of teens, where T is the power of one teen and n is the number of teens in the network, is T^(1/n).
Even worse, if you connect your cluster to the internet, the effective computing power becomes T^(1/n)/B, where B is the bandwidth of the connection.
There is a special exception to this, however, that takes into account the Mischief Coefficient. For any problem, P, with a fractional mischief component of M, the expected power becomes T^(1/(1-M)n).
As we can see, for any problem with a Mischief Component of 1, the power of the cluster becomes infinite. In fact, using my Beowulf Cluster of Teens, I was able to determine that the more teens you have, the more infinite their power gets. For example, according to my BCoT, if you have 100 teens, your cluster would be 10 times more infinitely powerful than an infinitely powerful cluster of only 10 teens.
You don't have to be sure. You only have to take down the content if the person who owns the copyright for that content asks you to.
As long as you do that, you're not liable for other people posting copyrighted material to your site.
Once you've spent $100 million on a movie... ...what exactly do you get for the SECOND $100 million you spend?
The real question is why objects would disappear, not why they wouldn't. In the real world, everything has to go somewhere and the idea that you can tear something apart at the molecular level and send it somewhere in a "beam" is absurd.
E=mc2 and all that.
You can change matter into energy. You can move energy. You can change energy into matter. Granted, we can't do any of those things very well or efficiently, but you could certainly pulverize matter into energy, send the energy somewhere, then make it into matter again, and thus not have any matter left over at the origin.
Internet danger beats junk food, phone scums, abduction/rape by stranger on the street. In some areas it'll beat assault by classmates. And that's just PHYSICAL danger.
But I'm not talking about just physical danger. I think when you put kids in an environment where they are frequently SOLICITED by people 10-40 years older than they are, you are exposing those kids to damage, just notobvious, physical damage. And it's damage that's easy to avoid: Don't let kids have profiles anywhere, and perhaps don't let them have instant messengers at all.
I would bet that slip and fall in the shower is a more frequent cause of death for teens than online predators.
This may be true, but I would bet that online contact is a more frequent cause of harm to teens than slip and fall in the shower. It's not as obvious, because it's not physical, but it's there.
I grew up on computers, from 10 years old and up, talking to people online back when it consisted of paging the SysOp for a one-on-one conversation. (And I'm sorry for all the SysOps I so incessently annoyed when I was 10.) And I am really starting to think that what we need is the equivalent of VChips for computers. Something that doesn't let kids have a profile, anywhere, and something that doesn't let them install instant messaging programs.
Let 'em use the phone.
I think in the long run this will be better for the above average players by keeping the degenerate gamblers out.
Erm, how is that good for above-average players? Degenerate gamblers are where we make our money!
And to protect our standard of living, we should automate or offshore any job we can.
Labor is expensive. The more jobs we can eliminate doing manufacturing and service with automation, and the more jobs we can give to people who are otherwise idly starving abroad, the more people we will have available at home to become nurses and provide all that healthcare people seem to want for free.
The middle class isn't getting poorer. The middle class is just demanding that more and more of their income is spent on healthcare. We'd all make a lot more money if we were willing to settle for the same drugs and treatments available to us in 1960.
Siphoning money from the poorest members of society to pay for budget shortfalls the rest of the public is unwilling to support makes much more sense
s/poor/stupid/g
Losing your money gambling is a result of being stupid.* It is not surprising that stupid people also tend to be poor people.
Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances. Others are poor because they deserve it.
(* Some people lose money gambling as a recreational expense, and there's nothing wrong with taxing that, either.)
Look, we all gotta pay taxes. I'm an empoyee, and I pay income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes; a property owner, so I pay property taxes; a business owner who pays income taxes on that... ...There's no reason that the economic activity of gambling online should not ALSO be taxed.
The problem here is not that government is trying to protect a tax base. The problem is that, despite the online gambling industry pretty much BEGGING to pay taxes, the government is trying to ban something other people want to do.
This effort has nothing to do with taxes. It's the result of a combination of social 'it's bad for people and we shouldn't let it happen' coupled with lobbying by established gambling interests.
If the government WAS trying to preserve it's tax base, it would REGULATE online gambling. They would get a LOT more tax money from taxing online gambling than they would from banning it.
What makes you think Murdoch wants YouTube to be profitable?
It just has to be a lesser expense than any other advertising outlet.
One of the reasons networks spend big money on sports leagues is to get people to see their ads for their other programming during the games.
Did you know that 99.9% of people being treated for cancer have cancer?
42% is surprising - but it's not surprising because it's high, it's surprising because it's low. Wouldn't you expect that 100% of the people complaining about problem with WGA would have genuine software?
...since so many places are always asking you for them.
If telling people that you told me that you like to have sexual relations with farm animals is not actionable, than certainly telling people that you asked me about information regarding sex with farm animals isn't actionable either. (Assuming, of course, that you had actually done both, if I just made it up, then depending on the circumstances it would be actionable.)
IANAL....
AOL, like most ISPs, has a privacy agreement, which states when and how your information may be distributed. Most call this 'personally identifying' information. That would probably include search terms, especially when grouped by a unique identifier, that would personally identify you.
How AOL obtained that information (plain text over the internet or otherwise) is not relevant - if they agreed with you that they would not share it, then they can't share it.
What I'm curious to see here is most of these agreements also force binding arbitration - if that is the case here, can you even have a class action lawsuit based on the privacy agreement?
And if not, are there any actual LAWS violated here? I don't see any legal culpability. If you tell me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, and I tell someone else that you told me that you like to conduct sexual relations with farm animals, that wouldn't be actionable. And that's basically what happened here, only in a large volume: People told AOL what they wanted to seach for, and AOL then passed that information to others.
Unfortunate, yes, but there isn't any inherent legal obligation for a 3rd party to hold information you give them in confidence (with certain specific exceptions, like healthcare workers, grand juries, etc, of which AOL is none).
I have several friends in bands, and when I ask them what got them into their music, they never reply "because I want to make a profit". They want the world to enjoy their music
Really? My friends in bands say it's because musicians get all the chicks.
but the fact remains that they would have done so eventually anyway to make a greater profit.
Companies do this to avoid going out of business entirely, because if they competition does it and they don't, they can't compete.
And this is a GOOD thing. We have been shipping jobs overseas for decades. We have shipper far more jobs overseas than we even have people living in this country.
IF you believed the Unions, everybody would be unemployed - but this obviously isn't the case. Unemployment has remained relatively constant for decades. Everytime we ship a job overseas, *WE* get more stuff, for less money, and we get new jobs to replace those old jobs.
I like more stuff, so bring offshore labor on.
I thought Bi-partisan is willing to service both Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen?
However, if it's totally unavoidable that you're going to need to recharge batteries many times before getting back to your main base, half your arguement disappears.
No it doesn't. It's not possible to recharge the batteries many times before going back to the main base. It's not even possible to recharge them once - it takes 5 hours, and a laptop battery only lasts about 2 hours. Sure, you could carry more laptop batteries, but you could ALSO just carry more basic, non-USB rechargeable batteries. That'll get you a lot more power for the weight than the USB battery solution.
There is NO situation in which one of these USB batteries is better than a regular 2500mAh rechargable battery. Period.
And yet, we're still using about as much fuel as before the price hikes.
... causes the price to go up! And now that the price is back up again, it becomes worthwhile to seek out harder-to-get oil.
The phrase you are looking for is 'fungible commodity'.
In the short term, a certain amount of oil is produced every day, that gets refined into various products.
There is more than enough demand for oil to use up the supply. That's what establishes the price - if the demand for oil products is too high at a price, the price will go up. If demand at a price is too low, the price will go down.
So, if you tax oil products, what happens? Demand goes down. Price falls. So you end up with the same price for gas as you would have had without taxes - just more of the prize going to taxes. (Well, in a global market, what really happens is the price across the planet drops slightly and the oil products get sold elsewhere.)
In the *LONG* term, if you lower demand enough by taxing enough, the price people can sell oil products for (before tax) goes down, so it becomes less profitable to seek out new sources of oil. So less oil becomes available. Which
In the real long term, you raise gas taxes because, as mentioned above, it takes most of the revenue from gas and puts it into the government's hands to waste appropriately. Since there is thus less economic motivation for people to sell gas, there is a comparatively bigger motivation for energy-producers to invest in energy-production technology that is not taxed, where they can keep more of the profits.