Yeah, that's why they never suicide bomb their own neighborhoods
Yep, quite so. They generaly move into another neighbohood, and them bomb that other one.
or taunt superpowers into invading their countries
You can't blame the terrorists for the US modus operant of terrorizing nations that can't protect themselves. But, anyway, last time I saw, the US didn't have a track record of going after the terrorists' nations (Are you talking about the Taliban? They are from Saudi Arabia). They mostly go after who the terrorists' nations tell them to go.
Energy availability. But that of course assumes we already explored most of the solar energy available here on Earth, or that we have a usefull fusion technology, and waste heat is becoming a problem.
Thus, is there any resource we could find interesting on space? Yes. Is there any resource we find interesting now? No.
Nobody was ever able to terraform a planet either. All evidence supports that building the habitat is easier.
But I don't think we should go to space first, and learn how to create habitats later. I really think we should send just our machines, and study how to create those habitats here on Earth...
Why do we need so much energy? Why do we need so much processing power? Why do we need so much stuf?
All those questions are on the same line. They all have the same answer. To the best of my knowledge the answer is either a deterministc one based on darwinism, or "people are addicted to power".
It does not require popularity. Well, ok, it does, up to the point that somebody must think it is usefull. If nobody thinks that, ok, it may still be inovation, but it is failled inovation.
Anyway, if somebody thinks it is better than the alternative, then it is innovation. The reciprocate and the inverse aren't always true or always false.
They won't be able to sell much of it, since anybody could get their binaries and resell them. Remeber, no copyrights...
They'll just create a problem up to the point that people interested in working on their software must decompile it, assign the old code to their library, and deobfuscate (the enterprizey name is document) the code that was added. It is some headache, but not a showstopper. Also, it will be more of a headache the most the company adds in value to the code.
It is not possible that the entire country is stupid enough to not know that, once they remove themselves from conventional markets everybody will simply ignore their intelectual property treatries.
Or the OSS projects could, you know, just keep accepting code (without copyrights, as nothing else has), and publishing its code (again, without copyrights). They would even do so knowing that nobody will be able to stop downtream coders from publishing the code themselves, sice twhat they get is not covered by copyrights. The only difference from GPL is that nobody id required to publish their source code, but again, there is no economical reason not for.
All the system around OSS exists only to ensure that it will keep working despite the existence of copyrights. Communitary software worked quite well before copyrights were exended into it.
There were plenty of companies at the time creating proprietary networks. Then came some guys that said "hey, let's put an open protocol over those proprietary networks", and sudenly networks become a big deal. You don't have to imagine what would happen if some cable TV company created the Internet equivalent because that is how it happened. In the end only an open protocol could fullfill that need.
Now, of course, I have no idea how long it would take if not for Darpa. They had some quite important reasons to care about open and reliable networks, so they could invest quite a bit of money building one.
You can just google it. Lots of people here talk about the Anarchist Handbook, I've downloaded it once (it may be on my computer somewhere, finding things here is hard), but never readed, I can't say if it is interesting.
Anyway, just remember that bombs explode. Sometimes even when you want them to.
Your professor lied to you. Ok, I won't think he made anything wrong, he got your attention, that's what was important there. But building an implosion nuclear bomb is not easy in any way. Those instructions are public, you can search and read them (unless you are at the UK), but while you read keep in mind that you don't have atomicaly precise components.
There is no plan for a terrorist attack in TFA, and he didn't go shopping guns. There is some vague display of intentions, and some research about prices of guns.
Ok, the people of a country has all the right to create stupid laws, and the police has all the right of being stupid and not using this guy to get some actual terrorists. But we have all the right to complain that those stupid things are stupid, and to talk about it. (Well, as least I have that right, it is protected by the Constitution here, unless I mark that post anonymous box up there, then I lose it - I know, stupid.)
So, when your toughts get out of your head into a piece of paper they stop being toughts?
The guy didn't make a bomb or poison (not even aquired material for it), didn't contact anybody (or at least there isn't any evidence presented here). All he did was to think about it.
The freedom of thought is an inescapable prerequisite to the freedom of speech
That stuf is inverted. The reason no constitution out there gets formalises the protection of the freedom of tought is that not granting it is so absurd that no constituint could ever think about it.
If you think a bit about it (let's hope your government will permit) the freedom of tought is the essential one here, and the freedom of speech is protected because it is important (not even a prerequisite, just important) for the former.
Even then, the police lost the chance of getting into his spiritual mentor and maybe arresting some real terrorists. All that because they decided to arrest somebody that would happily blow himself at his lab while persuiting some fantasy.
That is the practical reason for "pre-crimes are bad". You don't get anybody smart enough to be dangerous by that route. Add that for all moral reasons and that "revolutions are necessary" thing.
"Let's go out and blow biulding X" is preliminary of a crime. "Do you know that if you mix Y and Z it explodes and can even take a building with it?" is not.
Also, if you have any amount of sanity left, to that first conversation to be preliminary of a crime you'd need to show that the actors actualy have the capacity to explode building X. At least that is how it works around here at Brazil. And if that capacity is something that everybody have, you'll have a hard case and should better get some more evidence.
That is true in isolation, but can change while interacting with something. While traversing the graphene it may quite well get smaller than the helium. Other thing that can happen is to the empty space at the graphene to grow when near a whater molecule...
To be short, when you put two molecules toghether they may become quite different from what they are when far apart.
If your filter is one atom thick, there is nowhere you can accumulate any amount of material to clog anything. But it also restrict the pressure you can apply to it... You can increase the pressure again if you use several filters, one behind the other, but them you'll have to wash all of them, otherwise they'll clog.
So, potentialy, that can remove the problem. In practice, I have no idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, quite so. They generaly move into another neighbohood, and them bomb that other one.
You can't blame the terrorists for the US modus operant of terrorizing nations that can't protect themselves. But, anyway, last time I saw, the US didn't have a track record of going after the terrorists' nations (Are you talking about the Taliban? They are from Saudi Arabia). They mostly go after who the terrorists' nations tell them to go.
Energy availability. But that of course assumes we already explored most of the solar energy available here on Earth, or that we have a usefull fusion technology, and waste heat is becoming a problem.
Thus, is there any resource we could find interesting on space? Yes. Is there any resource we find interesting now? No.
Nobody was ever able to terraform a planet either. All evidence supports that building the habitat is easier.
But I don't think we should go to space first, and learn how to create habitats later. I really think we should send just our machines, and study how to create those habitats here on Earth...
First we'll need nuclear fusion and some kind of autonomous robots.
And we ever want that brain to be ours, we'd better get a deep understand of neurology and neural implants before we get those autonomous robots...
Why do we need so much energy? Why do we need so much processing power? Why do we need so much stuf?
All those questions are on the same line. They all have the same answer. To the best of my knowledge the answer is either a deterministc one based on darwinism, or "people are addicted to power".
It does not require popularity. Well, ok, it does, up to the point that somebody must think it is usefull. If nobody thinks that, ok, it may still be inovation, but it is failled inovation.
Anyway, if somebody thinks it is better than the alternative, then it is innovation. The reciprocate and the inverse aren't always true or always false.
I see... I misunderstood how copyright works in an hypotetical world without copyrights? Maybe you should read the context.
They won't be able to sell much of it, since anybody could get their binaries and resell them. Remeber, no copyrights...
They'll just create a problem up to the point that people interested in working on their software must decompile it, assign the old code to their library, and deobfuscate (the enterprizey name is document) the code that was added. It is some headache, but not a showstopper. Also, it will be more of a headache the most the company adds in value to the code.
They sell ads. And it looks like their ad revenues has some space to grow.
I'd be more concerned about how they intend to keep their ever moving customers from moving to the next big thing once it appears on the horizon.
My thoughts were more aking to: "They didn't sell the company yet? What are they thinking? That they have a sustainable business?"
They created a social network that, for some reason, people tought was better than the alternatives. That is called inovation.
Now, you can say they stopped inovating. As a consequence, they must have also stopped improving.
It is not possible that the entire country is stupid enough to not know that, once they remove themselves from conventional markets everybody will simply ignore their intelectual property treatries.
So, all that MAFIAA must do is to try often enough?
Or the OSS projects could, you know, just keep accepting code (without copyrights, as nothing else has), and publishing its code (again, without copyrights). They would even do so knowing that nobody will be able to stop downtream coders from publishing the code themselves, sice twhat they get is not covered by copyrights. The only difference from GPL is that nobody id required to publish their source code, but again, there is no economical reason not for.
All the system around OSS exists only to ensure that it will keep working despite the existence of copyrights. Communitary software worked quite well before copyrights were exended into it.
There were plenty of companies at the time creating proprietary networks. Then came some guys that said "hey, let's put an open protocol over those proprietary networks", and sudenly networks become a big deal. You don't have to imagine what would happen if some cable TV company created the Internet equivalent because that is how it happened. In the end only an open protocol could fullfill that need.
Now, of course, I have no idea how long it would take if not for Darpa. They had some quite important reasons to care about open and reliable networks, so they could invest quite a bit of money building one.
You can just google it. Lots of people here talk about the Anarchist Handbook, I've downloaded it once (it may be on my computer somewhere, finding things here is hard), but never readed, I can't say if it is interesting.
Anyway, just remember that bombs explode. Sometimes even when you want them to.
Your professor lied to you. Ok, I won't think he made anything wrong, he got your attention, that's what was important there. But building an implosion nuclear bomb is not easy in any way. Those instructions are public, you can search and read them (unless you are at the UK), but while you read keep in mind that you don't have atomicaly precise components.
There is no plan for a terrorist attack in TFA, and he didn't go shopping guns. There is some vague display of intentions, and some research about prices of guns.
Ok, the people of a country has all the right to create stupid laws, and the police has all the right of being stupid and not using this guy to get some actual terrorists. But we have all the right to complain that those stupid things are stupid, and to talk about it. (Well, as least I have that right, it is protected by the Constitution here, unless I mark that post anonymous box up there, then I lose it - I know, stupid.)
So, when your toughts get out of your head into a piece of paper they stop being toughts?
The guy didn't make a bomb or poison (not even aquired material for it), didn't contact anybody (or at least there isn't any evidence presented here). All he did was to think about it.
That stuf is inverted. The reason no constitution out there gets formalises the protection of the freedom of tought is that not granting it is so absurd that no constituint could ever think about it.
If you think a bit about it (let's hope your government will permit) the freedom of tought is the essential one here, and the freedom of speech is protected because it is important (not even a prerequisite, just important) for the former.
For that you would have to detain the hundreds of thousands of not murderers that drew suspicion to themselves too.
Even then, the police lost the chance of getting into his spiritual mentor and maybe arresting some real terrorists. All that because they decided to arrest somebody that would happily blow himself at his lab while persuiting some fantasy.
That is the practical reason for "pre-crimes are bad". You don't get anybody smart enough to be dangerous by that route. Add that for all moral reasons and that "revolutions are necessary" thing.
"Let's go out and blow biulding X" is preliminary of a crime. "Do you know that if you mix Y and Z it explodes and can even take a building with it?" is not.
Also, if you have any amount of sanity left, to that first conversation to be preliminary of a crime you'd need to show that the actors actualy have the capacity to explode building X. At least that is how it works around here at Brazil. And if that capacity is something that everybody have, you'll have a hard case and should better get some more evidence.
That is true in isolation, but can change while interacting with something. While traversing the graphene it may quite well get smaller than the helium. Other thing that can happen is to the empty space at the graphene to grow when near a whater molecule...
To be short, when you put two molecules toghether they may become quite different from what they are when far apart.
If your filter is one atom thick, there is nowhere you can accumulate any amount of material to clog anything. But it also restrict the pressure you can apply to it... You can increase the pressure again if you use several filters, one behind the other, but them you'll have to wash all of them, otherwise they'll clog.
So, potentialy, that can remove the problem. In practice, I have no idea.