No one here cares about rights. This is simply macrovision trying to survive. If: 1. Anyone can overcome macrovision protection, 2. It will be useless to even build it in anywhere. 4. No company will by the protection from macrovision. 5. Loss
Could it possibly be programmers/students/researchers who do programming as a hobby, but use their company/school e-mail account for it? I'm know of at least one...
It is nice to have some extra money. (But you don't rely on software writing for food then, I hope)
But it is also nice to be able to find the software I want, or the wikipedia article I want, or the scientific paper I want for free. It is called a public good. If 1000 people contribute just 100 hours of work each, then each can enjoy the equivalent of 100,000 hours of work, having spent just 100 hours. Amazing, huh? It's like magic. Of course you can also enjoy the product of 100,000 hours of work without contributing a minute. But I feel a bit like a parasite in that case.
That's why I said "given that you do this as a hobby". A hobby is: "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation" (it also seems to be a kind of falcon, but I don't think that's what was meant).
I was assuming that if you do something as a hobby, you don't do it in order to "Eat. Pay bills. Save it for a rainy day". I do it as a hobby, and I do it exactly because it is the only way for me to pay back for the work many many others have done so that I can enjoy my hobby.
Do you use any free software? gcc? linux? Firefox? Now, if you replied yes above, then... How long would it take you to write that stuff yourself? How much would you have paid to get equivalent stuff? How long would it take you to write the equivalent stuff yourself? Why don't you make your software free for others to use, if you use anyone else's free software?
That is the cool thing about software and information - you don't lose anything when someone makes another copy (or Linus would be bankrupt now). So you can pay the community back by contributing your own stuff. It is true that you don't become rich, but you do have all the software/info you want - and that's what you'd do with the money anyway, right?
This is not a philosophical question. It is a legal question. Will the scientist be able to defend herself in court against a claim that she violated the license? If she was working on an atomic bomb enhancement program, probably not. If she was working on the mass of neutrinos, probably yes.
Do you make sure disk cache is empty when verifying files? Best is probably to turn everything on and off before verifying. I once had a problem that caused files that I was backing up across the network to have errors. I added verify, and files still ended up having errors without triggering error on verification - it turned out to be a cache problem -.i.e. linux was comparing the files to what it had in its disk cache, not to what was in the disk. I really wish there was good way to verify files. Is there?
1. List the number of times chemical warfare agents have been employed. Classify as to whether the agents have been used by a government or by a terrorist organisation. In each case list the number of humans killed, injured, and the total amount of environmental damage done. 2. Using the results in 1. calculate the probability that conditional on a chemical agent being used, it was used by terrorists.
Bonus points: list usage by country, and calculate conditional probability as in 2, for different countries. Which country do you think is most likely to use a chemical agent in general, or in particular against humans.
Sorry, I will not get into the argument about whether the dead "got what they deserved". I'll just say that if 1000 people died on my watch, I'd feel very very responsible. I would not say that they got what they deserved - and luckily, Bush isn't either.
P.S. When I said "and to the families of those who died." I meant the families of the tens of thousands I counted before, not just the ones in New Orleans.
Tell this to 40,000 iraqi civilians, and uncounted number of iraqi soldiers that were killed as a result of his actions. Tell this to 2700 american and coalition soldiers dead, to 1000 dead in New Orleans, and to the families of those who died.
Some of the "crap he's pulled" can not be undone, not even in 20 years. Please don't underestimate Bush's crap, even with the damage to the "inalienable rights".
I sometimes wonder "how they sleep at night". Is it easy to tell yourself that the thousands of people killed where all for the best, and it all had to be done? I guess the world has known far greater evil, and they all slept well.
:) By this reasoning, e-mail is taxed, too. Except that you pay 0$ per e-mail, and a 18% tax on top of that (or however much it currently is wherever "you" live...) I think the idea would be a constant tax per e-mail - 0.1 cent per e-mail, or something like that (I guess just (amount of money italian government wants to have)/(# of e-mails sent) )
Though I absolutely agree with you that this is un-enforceable, I think the problem is not with identifying who pays. It is easy - you tax the carrier of the e-mail, and the rest takes care of itself - the carrier knows who to charge. But you can not really tax e-mail. People (i.e. internet providers, and through them people) will move to a different port, different protocol, icu, secret blogs, hidden web pages whatever. In the end you'd have to tax bytes sent on the net.
What was his estimated probability of death over the next 10 years, what is it now? Divide the cost of 1.1 mil by the difference between these two numbers, and that is what you have to compare to the loss to the company. The death rate was not reduced from 100% to 0%.
It would also be a shame if Bezos died of hunger, and yet Amazon is not supposed to pay for his food. Or maybe he could become unstable because of lack of entertainment, so amazon should pay for trips around the world and concert tickets. Or if he was very sick? Amazon should also pay for healthcare. Or if he was hit by electricity from using unsafe appliences at home? Amazon should make sure he's only using the best of the best in kitchen appliences. Or better yet, provide for someone to cook for him.
You see, it could be that Bezos himself also has some interest in preventing accidental death, or good entertainment, or good food. Maybe even more than amazon. Normally a person would provide for all these himself, and then, if the company thinks that not enough was done, then maybe they would provide for a bit added protection. But it seems here, the same person is doing both sides of the negotiation. Bezos the private person will say "I feel safe, I don't need any protection". And then Beszos the CEO says "Oh no, you can't say that. You are under extreme danger! Here, we will make sure that you are safe! It would be an emense loss to all of us if anything happened to you!"
You are right. Heating is the one thing that can be done at 100% efficiency. On the other hand I think it is a huge waste to use any energy specifically dedicated to heating.
If you use other devices, such as computers, light bulbs, etc, for heating, you convert them all to work at the efficiency of the powerplant+transmission - which is the best one can do - for electrically powered devices. (and 100% if you generate your electricity at home). Why are some people heating their home, while others run computers in centers, and then have to use airconditioners to cool down the server rooms? Just put computers in people's homes, and give them free heating!
But for a consumer, all that matters is the cost of energy: if 1W from electricity costs the same as 1W from gas, and you heat your house (i.e. outside temp is lower than temperature thermostat is set to), then all your electical devices are magically converted to run at 100% efficiency. (if the cost of 1W of gas is 1/2 that of 1W electricity, then the conversion is easy - a 70% effcient device runs at 70+30*1/2=85% efficiency)
. Anyone fueling their car on biodiesel is doing the right thing (TM).
Prove it. Why is it the right thing? Is it the wrong thing to use anything other
than biodiesel? If so, why is it wrong?
You are right. It isn't the right thing, it just is a right thing. And it isn't really a right thing, it is better than the alternative of using fossil fuel.
I am assuming the first source for biodiesel (or ethanol) will be from the
"leftovers" of current crops. [...] But that means these "leftovers" will now be
releasing the trapped carbon rather than keeping it sequestered.
Only if you store these leftover airtight will they not be part of the CO2 cycle, I think. They are energy sources, and if you don't use them by converting them to CO2, some bacteria will.
. The only important question is how much space you need to use to grow all the crops, and where you'd get it from.
Here I disagree. Your important questions are too general (The devil is in the
details). They also reveal a built in bias towards a command economy. How much
space is not important. If the crops are able to produce a decent profit for
farmers - and if the farmers know this, they will decide if they want to plant
fuel crops rather than what they are planting now.
As you point out later, if the "non-command economy" drives farmers or coutries to burn down forests in order to plant crops to sell them as fuel, then the total effect on the environment is somewhat less than optimal. So it does matter where space comes from. Space in general is a public good, and therefore not easily handled by a free market. So, even today it matters where space for farming comes from. But, if the world switches to biodiesel instead of oil, the global need for farmland will increase manyfold, and the question of where this additional farmland is taken from becomes important.
It is right that biodiesel is in no way perfect, and I do not think that it can actually provide a good solution to the energy problems. But, I have a feeling that most of the people who like to point out its shortcoming are driving cars burning fossil fuel.
Using biodiesel instead of oil is more sustainable. If all the cars used biodiesel, and we would continue to use it for hunrdreds of years, no additional CO2 will be added to the atmosphere. If, instead all these cars used oil, huge amounts of carbon will be dug out of the ground, and put into the atmosphere as CO2. Anyone fueling their car on biodiesel is doing the right thing (TM). Now, it is true that you could remove CO2 from the air by growing crops and putting them in mines. But I don't see anyone pay 2$ a gallon for burrying crops into the ground. Any other use of the crops (food, fertilizer, etc) will eventually make its way back into the air.
We need a sustainable source of energy, and biodiesel is one, as far as CO2 is concerned. It is just as good as nuclear, wind, sunlight, or whatever. The only important question is how much space you need to use to grow all the crops, and where you'd get it from.
I try to see if the program seems to be written or actually used. Very often programs seem to have all the greatest features, but they are not written by someone who actually uses them. It is easy to take an authentic screenshot when actually using a program, but quite hard to fake (sometimes).
Hmm.... quite interesting, since the price of the MP3 player in the article has not been determined yet. All that is known is that IT will be the most expensive player...
expect can do what you want. You would start ssh inside expect, and program a simple script for expect so that it spews out the aliases at the right moment. The hardest part would be to find which of the 'expect's that exist for windows will do the job.
I don't know expect, but the script will probably look something like this:
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... and when you do get an agent, what do you do with your 16 digit account number?
And all this is because I'm up late working on a talk.
But I bet there are no spelling or counting problems there.
No one here cares about rights. This is simply macrovision trying to survive. If:
1. Anyone can overcome macrovision protection,
2. It will be useless to even build it in anywhere.
4. No company will by the protection from macrovision.
5. Loss
Could it possibly be programmers/students/researchers who do programming as a hobby, but use their company/school e-mail account for it? I'm know of at least one...
It is nice to have some extra money. (But you don't rely on software writing for food then, I hope)
But it is also nice to be able to find the software I want, or the wikipedia article I want, or the scientific paper I want for free. It is called a public good. If 1000 people contribute just 100 hours of work each, then each can enjoy the equivalent of 100,000 hours of work, having spent just 100 hours. Amazing, huh? It's like magic. Of course you can also enjoy the product of 100,000 hours of work without contributing a minute. But I feel a bit like a parasite in that case.
That's why I said "given that you do this as a hobby". A hobby is: "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation" (it also seems to be a kind of falcon, but I don't think that's what was meant).
I was assuming that if you do something as a hobby, you don't do it in order to "Eat. Pay bills. Save it for a rainy day". I do it as a hobby, and I do it exactly because it is the only way for me to pay back for the work many many others have done so that I can enjoy my hobby.
Do you use any free software? gcc? linux? Firefox?
Now, if you replied yes above, then...
How long would it take you to write that stuff yourself? How much would you have paid to get equivalent stuff? How long would it take you to write the equivalent stuff yourself?
Why don't you make your software free for others to use, if you use anyone else's free software?
That is the cool thing about software and information - you don't lose anything when someone makes another copy (or Linus would be bankrupt now). So you can pay the community back by contributing your own stuff. It is true that you don't become rich, but you do have all the software/info you want - and that's what you'd do with the money anyway, right?
This is not a philosophical question. It is a legal question. Will the scientist be able to defend herself in court against a claim that she violated the license?
If she was working on an atomic bomb enhancement program, probably not. If she was working on the mass of neutrinos, probably yes.
Who said anything about allowing books on board?
4:3 at 12.1" diagonal is 70.3 square inch of LCD,
16:9 at 12.1" diagonal is 62.6 square inch of LCD
At face value, that's 12% of saving on LCD cost, and the consumer doesn't notice.
Do you make sure disk cache is empty when verifying files? Best is probably to turn everything on and off before verifying. I once had a problem that caused files that I was backing up across the network to have errors. I added verify, and files still ended up having errors without triggering error on verification - it turned out to be a cache problem - .i.e. linux was comparing the files to what it had in its disk cache, not to what was in the disk.
I really wish there was good way to verify files. Is there?
1. List the number of times chemical warfare agents have been employed. Classify as to whether the agents have been used by a government or by a terrorist organisation. In each case list the number of humans killed, injured, and the total amount of environmental damage done.
2. Using the results in 1. calculate the probability that conditional on a chemical agent being used, it was used by terrorists.
Bonus points: list usage by country, and calculate conditional probability as in 2, for different countries. Which country do you think is most likely to use a chemical agent in general, or in particular against humans.
As a reference, you can use the following material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Warfare
Sorry, I will not get into the argument about whether the dead "got what they deserved".
I'll just say that if 1000 people died on my watch, I'd feel very very responsible. I would not say that they got what they deserved - and luckily, Bush isn't either.
P.S. When I said "and to the families of those who died." I meant the families of the tens of thousands I counted before, not just the ones in New Orleans.
Tell this to 40,000 iraqi civilians, and uncounted number of iraqi soldiers that were killed as a result of his actions. Tell this to 2700 american and coalition soldiers dead, to 1000 dead in New Orleans, and to the families of those who died.
Some of the "crap he's pulled" can not be undone, not even in 20 years. Please don't underestimate Bush's crap, even with the damage to the "inalienable rights".
I sometimes wonder "how they sleep at night". Is it easy to tell yourself that the thousands of people killed where all for the best, and it all had to be done? I guess the world has known far greater evil, and they all slept well.
:)
By this reasoning, e-mail is taxed, too. Except that you pay 0$ per e-mail, and a 18% tax on top of that (or however much it currently is wherever "you" live...)
I think the idea would be a constant tax per e-mail - 0.1 cent per e-mail, or something like that (I guess just
(amount of money italian government wants to have)/(# of e-mails sent) )
Though I absolutely agree with you that this is un-enforceable, I think the problem is not with identifying who pays. It is easy - you tax the carrier of the e-mail, and the rest takes care of itself - the carrier knows who to charge.
But you can not really tax e-mail. People (i.e. internet providers, and through them people) will move to a different port, different protocol, icu, secret blogs, hidden web pages whatever. In the end you'd have to tax bytes sent on the net.
He's more rock-star/rainmaker at this point, than business manager.
Then what would be lost if he would be lost? Publicity?
And now he's safe from death?
What was his estimated probability of death over the next 10 years, what is it now? Divide the cost of 1.1 mil by the difference between these two numbers, and that is what you have to compare to the loss to the company. The death rate was not reduced from 100% to 0%.
It would also be a shame if Bezos died of hunger, and yet Amazon is not supposed to pay for his food. Or maybe he could become unstable because of lack of entertainment, so amazon should pay for trips around the world and concert tickets. Or if he was very sick? Amazon should also pay for healthcare. Or if he was hit by electricity from using unsafe appliences at home? Amazon should make sure he's only using the best of the best in kitchen appliences. Or better yet, provide for someone to cook for him.
You see, it could be that Bezos himself also has some interest in preventing accidental death, or good entertainment, or good food. Maybe even more than amazon. Normally a person would provide for all these himself, and then, if the company thinks that not enough was done, then maybe they would provide for a bit added protection. But it seems here, the same person is doing both sides of the negotiation. Bezos the private person will say "I feel safe, I don't need any protection". And then Beszos the CEO says "Oh no, you can't say that. You are under extreme danger! Here, we will make sure that you are safe! It would be an emense loss to all of us if anything happened to you!"
You are right. Heating is the one thing that can be done at 100% efficiency. On the other hand I think it is a huge waste to use any energy specifically dedicated to heating.
If you use other devices, such as computers, light bulbs, etc, for heating, you convert them all to work at the efficiency of the powerplant+transmission - which is the best one can do - for electrically powered devices. (and 100% if you generate your electricity at home). Why are some people heating their home, while others run computers in centers, and then have to use airconditioners to cool down the server rooms? Just put computers in people's homes, and give them free heating!
But for a consumer, all that matters is the cost of energy: if 1W from electricity costs the same as 1W from gas, and you heat your house (i.e. outside temp is lower than temperature thermostat is set to), then all your electical devices are magically converted to run at 100% efficiency.
(if the cost of 1W of gas is 1/2 that of 1W electricity, then the conversion is easy - a 70% effcient device runs at 70+30*1/2=85% efficiency)
.
Anyone fueling their car on biodiesel is doing the right thing (TM).
Prove it. Why is it the right thing? Is it the wrong thing to use anything other
than biodiesel? If so, why is it wrong?
You are right. It isn't the right thing, it just is a right thing. And it isn't really a right thing, it is better than the alternative of using fossil fuel.
I am assuming the first source for biodiesel (or ethanol) will be from the
"leftovers" of current crops. [...] But that means these "leftovers" will now be
releasing the trapped carbon rather than keeping it sequestered.
Only if you store these leftover airtight will they not be part of the CO2 cycle, I think. They are energy sources, and if you don't use them by converting them to CO2, some bacteria will.
.
The only important question is how much space you need to use to grow all the crops, and where you'd get it from.
Here I disagree. Your important questions are too general (The devil is in the
details). They also reveal a built in bias towards a command economy. How much
space is not important. If the crops are able to produce a decent profit for
farmers - and if the farmers know this, they will decide if they want to plant
fuel crops rather than what they are planting now.
As you point out later, if the "non-command economy" drives farmers or coutries to burn down forests in order to plant crops to sell them as fuel, then the total effect on the environment is somewhat less than optimal. So it does matter where space comes from. Space in general is a public good, and therefore not easily handled by a free market. So, even today it matters where space for farming comes from. But, if the world switches to biodiesel instead of oil, the global need for farmland will increase manyfold, and the question of where this additional farmland is taken from becomes important.
It is right that biodiesel is in no way perfect, and I do not think that it can actually provide a good solution to the energy problems. But, I have a feeling that most of the people who like to point out its shortcoming are driving cars burning fossil fuel.
I really get ticked off by comments like this!
Using biodiesel instead of oil is more sustainable. If all the cars used biodiesel, and we would continue to use it for hunrdreds of years, no additional CO2 will be added to the atmosphere. If, instead all these cars used oil, huge amounts of carbon will be dug out of the ground, and put into the atmosphere as CO2. Anyone fueling their car on biodiesel is doing the right thing (TM).
Now, it is true that you could remove CO2 from the air by growing crops and putting them in mines. But I don't see anyone pay 2$ a gallon for burrying crops into the ground. Any other use of the crops (food, fertilizer, etc) will eventually make its way back into the air.
We need a sustainable source of energy, and biodiesel is one, as far as CO2 is concerned. It is just as good as nuclear, wind, sunlight, or whatever. The only important question is how much space you need to use to grow all the crops, and where you'd get it from.
I try to see if the program seems to be written or actually used. Very often programs seem to have all the greatest features, but they are not written by someone who actually uses them. It is easy to take an authentic screenshot when actually using a program, but quite hard to fake (sometimes).
Hmm.... quite interesting, since the price of the MP3 player in the article has not been determined yet. All that is known is that IT will be the most expensive player...
Hey, anyone in germany (including me, I guess) - for two years in prison, click here http://images.google.com/images?q=mickey+mouse&hl= en&btnG=Search+Images. I wish bubble gum would come this easy!
I don't know expect, but the script will probably look something like this: