Yeah, they originally hired Leonardo, but then the Church wouldn't let him paint it because apparently the Flying Spaghetti Monster contradicts some bits of the Catholic dogma.
Bah. You can be content while simultaneously desiring more. Contentment is not to lack the craving to better oneself, but merely the sense that things as they currently are are "okay." Contentment, as I see it, is not a lack of desire for improvement, (which as you say is a somewhat morally dubious state) but merely a lack of discomfort about your current position. Those are distinct entities, as I see it.
Thus, you can be content with your current state in life while at the same time desire more. I admit it's not neccesarily the most logically consistant position one can hold, but emotions aren't logical. (Although one may apply logic to the proccess of acquiring a maximum emotional state.)
Imagine a bookstore hired an army of savants to memorize the contents of a huge number of books. Then when somebody walked into the store, they could ask one of these people about a book, and the person would give a brief description including a short quote from the book. This seems to my IANAL self to be a perfectly fair use, so why should it be suddenly illegal if you simply automate the proccess?
Etymologically, the word geek originally referred more-or-less exclusively to circus freaks who ate chicken heads. (I think it derives from a dutch word, I don't care to google it.) At some point the term changed to mean people incapable of understanding jokes.
I believe the reason is that at some point there was some law restricting the publication of erect penises, so hentai authors who really wanted to show penetration needed to be creative. Also, tentacles have the advantage that you can just grope everything at once.
Also, Japan is just a veritable breeding ground for fetishes in general. I suspect the rapid modernization and high population density probably has something to do with it, but hell... nobody can really understand Japan, not even Japanese people.
I suppose that's a valid point, but the 2003 war was a life-or-death thing where regime change was a stated goal, whereas the goal of the Americans in 1991 was more along the lines of "get the fuck out of Kuwait."
Personally, I think that Saddam Hussein wanted to have his cake and eat it too. That is, I think he disposed of his weapons in a highly dubious and possibly illegal fashion to satiate the sanctions, but acted as if he still had them "hidden somewhere" so he could act intimidating to his more local enemies who weren't quite as powerful as the United States.
Your theory isn't too bad, but it just doesn't make sense that Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used his WMDs while being invaded. I mean, if you're not going to use WMDs when your dictatorship is being overthrown, when the fuck do you use it?
You're thinking too short term. With the advancement of the Internet, the power of porn will get so powerful that either they all give up on any pretense towards religiosity and just start fwapping, or it will piss them off so much that they all suicide bomb themselves at once, in which case terrorism would stop being a problem because they'd all be dead.
I suppose you're right, but that argument only applies to derivative art. The more unique a work of art is, the harder it is to gauge its value through the market. However, unique art is important, (among other reasons, because only through the creation of new ideas is society able to grow) and furthermore much harder to make. (Because you can't just start with an existing framework and just through your own flourishes onto it.) Although again, government intervention might not be the best solution either.
That said, your point does segue into how I think I would change copyright. Don't remove it, because as you say we really don't have a better solution at the moment, but just extend the concept of "fair use" a bit. And as alluded to in the previous paragraph, perhaps give people the ability to make derivative works of a creative work (provided that they make signifigant changes to the original work.)
Reading Wikipedia's article on von Mises's argument, I cannot see what it has to do with copyright. The basic argument is that without a free market, there is no way to determine how much of a thing needs to be produced, so thus, you cannot efficiently allocate resources in such a way as to produce the goods.
There are a few problems trying to apply this to copyright. An idea either exists or it doesn't. Once an idea is created, it is possible for the idea to be copied ad infinitium at a fantastically low price. Thus, with creative works, the question is not how much to produce, but merely whether to produce anything at all.
But this is a different matter, and one where the market cannot help. The market can only tell you how much demand there is for a product after the product has entered the marketplace. But once the product enters the marketplace, the question of whether to produce it has already been answered. Thus, under copyright, the author has to guess whether there is enough demand for him to warrent writing the book. (Or whatever creative work.) Thus, the copyright method is on no firmer a foothold than the government funding method with respect to Von Mises's argument. They're both just guessing at how much people want it.
There may still be reasons to be against government funding, but that isn't it. (Although I don't advocate the outright destruction of copyright quite yet.)
You're right of course. I was gonna say that myself, but I had to get off the computer to get somewhere, so I ended up just saying it was "certainly worth learning."
This definitely develops skills which are useful for programming. But the skills are also useful for a lot of other things. Focusing on the programming aspect of things seems like a cheesy way to market this as a "programming game," which it really isn't. Nothing resembling actual computer programming is done in this. It's a math game, and all the programming aspects do is help give the game better PR. After all, if he had marketed this as a math game, he sure as hell wouldn't be in Wired right now.
And I'm a college student who has recently signed myself up with a math major, so I'm certainly not against kids learning math.
This is really more of a math game than a programming game per se. Yes, it teaches the concept of conditional branching, but that's not especially new to the world of board games. Also, "x" isn't really a variable, but instead represents the number you rolled, which is different from how programming actually works. (Which is potentially confusing, because c-jump otherwise uses a fairly C-like syntax, with == instead of = and everything.)
Not to say that this isn't a potentially educational game, but this is really more a way to practice doing simple arithematic and logic instead of anything specific to programming itself. (Although arithematic and logic is certainly worth learning.) It would probably lose absolutely nothing in playability or educational value if they removed all C stuff from it and just made it into a silly little math game.
Sylphius uses Python. Python is Open Source, as is Linux. Linux was programmed by Linus Torvalds. Linus Torvalds was in Revolution OS which was narrated by Susan Egan, who was in Death and Texas with Charles Durning, who was in the made-for-TV version of Mister Roberts with Kevin Bacon.
Yeah, but why would Linus switch to GPL 3? Just because Stallman says "Okay, we're using GPL 3 now!" doesn't mean anyone has to listen to him any more than people listen to him about GNU/Linux.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks about this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Except that there are free lunches. If you find a bag full of frozen White Castle hamburgers on the side of the road, that's a free lunch. One should not rule out the possibility of "finding a bag full of hamburgers on the side of the road," metaphorically speaking.
Plus, this isn't really a free lunch. I mean, we're doing all this research to find out this kind of stuff. That seems like a fair price in a cosmic sense. (Whatever cosmic means.)
Go to a Radio Shack and "acquire" a power inverter. Then "find" a car which hasn't been flooded (maybe in a garage, for example) and charge up your laptop using the cigarette lighter.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, they originally hired Leonardo, but then the Church wouldn't let him paint it because apparently the Flying Spaghetti Monster contradicts some bits of the Catholic dogma.
Damned heathens.
I would.
But will it run on eMacs?
Bah. You can be content while simultaneously desiring more. Contentment is not to lack the craving to better oneself, but merely the sense that things as they currently are are "okay." Contentment, as I see it, is not a lack of desire for improvement, (which as you say is a somewhat morally dubious state) but merely a lack of discomfort about your current position. Those are distinct entities, as I see it.
Thus, you can be content with your current state in life while at the same time desire more. I admit it's not neccesarily the most logically consistant position one can hold, but emotions aren't logical. (Although one may apply logic to the proccess of acquiring a maximum emotional state.)
Imagine a bookstore hired an army of savants to memorize the contents of a huge number of books. Then when somebody walked into the store, they could ask one of these people about a book, and the person would give a brief description including a short quote from the book. This seems to my IANAL self to be a perfectly fair use, so why should it be suddenly illegal if you simply automate the proccess?
Hey... fucking people is hard work too, you know.
Etymologically, the word geek originally referred more-or-less exclusively to circus freaks who ate chicken heads. (I think it derives from a dutch word, I don't care to google it.) At some point the term changed to mean people incapable of understanding jokes.
I believe the reason is that at some point there was some law restricting the publication of erect penises, so hentai authors who really wanted to show penetration needed to be creative. Also, tentacles have the advantage that you can just grope everything at once.
Also, Japan is just a veritable breeding ground for fetishes in general. I suspect the rapid modernization and high population density probably has something to do with it, but hell... nobody can really understand Japan, not even Japanese people.
I suppose that's a valid point, but the 2003 war was a life-or-death thing where regime change was a stated goal, whereas the goal of the Americans in 1991 was more along the lines of "get the fuck out of Kuwait."
Personally, I think that Saddam Hussein wanted to have his cake and eat it too. That is, I think he disposed of his weapons in a highly dubious and possibly illegal fashion to satiate the sanctions, but acted as if he still had them "hidden somewhere" so he could act intimidating to his more local enemies who weren't quite as powerful as the United States.
Your theory isn't too bad, but it just doesn't make sense that Saddam Hussein wouldn't have used his WMDs while being invaded. I mean, if you're not going to use WMDs when your dictatorship is being overthrown, when the fuck do you use it?
You're thinking too short term. With the advancement of the Internet, the power of porn will get so powerful that either they all give up on any pretense towards religiosity and just start fwapping, or it will piss them off so much that they all suicide bomb themselves at once, in which case terrorism would stop being a problem because they'd all be dead.
Yes, but DNA and Glucose are still extremely different chemicals. Also, acetylene is also carbon-filled.
I suppose you're right, but that argument only applies to derivative art. The more unique a work of art is, the harder it is to gauge its value through the market. However, unique art is important, (among other reasons, because only through the creation of new ideas is society able to grow) and furthermore much harder to make. (Because you can't just start with an existing framework and just through your own flourishes onto it.) Although again, government intervention might not be the best solution either.
That said, your point does segue into how I think I would change copyright. Don't remove it, because as you say we really don't have a better solution at the moment, but just extend the concept of "fair use" a bit. And as alluded to in the previous paragraph, perhaps give people the ability to make derivative works of a creative work (provided that they make signifigant changes to the original work.)
Reading Wikipedia's article on von Mises's argument, I cannot see what it has to do with copyright. The basic argument is that without a free market, there is no way to determine how much of a thing needs to be produced, so thus, you cannot efficiently allocate resources in such a way as to produce the goods.
There are a few problems trying to apply this to copyright. An idea either exists or it doesn't. Once an idea is created, it is possible for the idea to be copied ad infinitium at a fantastically low price. Thus, with creative works, the question is not how much to produce, but merely whether to produce anything at all.
But this is a different matter, and one where the market cannot help. The market can only tell you how much demand there is for a product after the product has entered the marketplace. But once the product enters the marketplace, the question of whether to produce it has already been answered. Thus, under copyright, the author has to guess whether there is enough demand for him to warrent writing the book. (Or whatever creative work.) Thus, the copyright method is on no firmer a foothold than the government funding method with respect to Von Mises's argument. They're both just guessing at how much people want it.
There may still be reasons to be against government funding, but that isn't it. (Although I don't advocate the outright destruction of copyright quite yet.)
You're right of course. I was gonna say that myself, but I had to get off the computer to get somewhere, so I ended up just saying it was "certainly worth learning."
This definitely develops skills which are useful for programming. But the skills are also useful for a lot of other things. Focusing on the programming aspect of things seems like a cheesy way to market this as a "programming game," which it really isn't. Nothing resembling actual computer programming is done in this. It's a math game, and all the programming aspects do is help give the game better PR. After all, if he had marketed this as a math game, he sure as hell wouldn't be in Wired right now.
And I'm a college student who has recently signed myself up with a math major, so I'm certainly not against kids learning math.
This is really more of a math game than a programming game per se. Yes, it teaches the concept of conditional branching, but that's not especially new to the world of board games. Also, "x" isn't really a variable, but instead represents the number you rolled, which is different from how programming actually works. (Which is potentially confusing, because c-jump otherwise uses a fairly C-like syntax, with == instead of = and everything.)
Not to say that this isn't a potentially educational game, but this is really more a way to practice doing simple arithematic and logic instead of anything specific to programming itself. (Although arithematic and logic is certainly worth learning.) It would probably lose absolutely nothing in playability or educational value if they removed all C stuff from it and just made it into a silly little math game.
Sylphius uses Python. Python is Open Source, as is Linux. Linux was programmed by Linus Torvalds. Linus Torvalds was in Revolution OS which was narrated by Susan Egan, who was in Death and Texas with Charles Durning, who was in the made-for-TV version of Mister Roberts with Kevin Bacon .
Practical applications are for dorks. Pure math is where it's at, yo.
Twenty-somethings watch tons of cartoons. Why do you think Adult Swim is so highly rated in that demographic?
Yeah, but why would Linus switch to GPL 3? Just because Stallman says "Okay, we're using GPL 3 now!" doesn't mean anyone has to listen to him any more than people listen to him about GNU/Linux.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks about this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Except that there are free lunches. If you find a bag full of frozen White Castle hamburgers on the side of the road, that's a free lunch. One should not rule out the possibility of "finding a bag full of hamburgers on the side of the road," metaphorically speaking.
Plus, this isn't really a free lunch. I mean, we're doing all this research to find out this kind of stuff. That seems like a fair price in a cosmic sense. (Whatever cosmic means.)
When did Slashdot get a high signal to noise ratio?!
Anyway, nerds might like this movie, so it's information which nerds might like, so it's on point.
Go to a Radio Shack and "acquire" a power inverter. Then "find" a car which hasn't been flooded (maybe in a garage, for example) and charge up your laptop using the cigarette lighter.
WorldWideWeb, the very first web browser ever, was free. So there. :)