Respectfully disagree that this technology will reduce competition for oil.
Nuclear technology is used for producing electricity. China relies primarily for coal to fuel its electrical generation capability. All else equal, the introduction of nuclear technology would serve to displace coal, and have little or no effect on oil consumption.
Oil and its refined products are primarily a transportation fuel (and secondarily as a heating fuel). Oil demand in China is skyrocketing with the fast growing economy, construction, personal wealth, and demand for vehicles. So if anything, competition with China for oil will only increase, and will not materially be affected by new nuclear technology coming on line.
Just wanted to point out that this doesn't apply in all languages. When dealing with languages where int i; does initialize to a known value, it's unnecessary (though not wrong) to do int i=0;. For example, most languages that aren't C or C++. If you're coding in Java, you know that if you do int i; it will be initialized to 0 for you.
What you are saying is of course factually correct. However, I disagree with the conclusion that just because a language does something you shouldn't also try to make you intentions as clear as possible.
Any developer worth his salt will program in a variety of languages over his career, with each language having its own semantics, conventions, and quirks. In my opinion, becoming a great developer is about cultivating a certain mindset. A great developer develops bulletproof habits, hard-won conventions learned across all programming languages.
In Java you don't have to initialize variables because the language defines semantics for that situation. It's technically not wrong, and a developer who chooses to recognize this and not initialize their variables is a not necessarily a lazy or bad developer, but it would raise my eyebrow. This leads to developing a bad habit which will bite you when you go to another language with different semantics, and your newly-declared int gets set to whatever trash value was lying around on the stack. It's all about the mindset.
If you made a perfect copy, it's definitely legal to sell it for $2000 - as long as it doesn't say Prada on it. If you misrepresent the origin by infringing on the trademark (trademark applies here, not copyright), then you can't. Nor should you.
There seems to be more or less universal condemnation for the website owner who plagiarized recipes and magazine articles. This is at odds with the general Slash-titude that information wants to be free - as in beer - especially if the creative work in question is a song or a movie.
How is copying another's writings (to which you have no claim) and making it publicly available any different than taking music or movies and making them available?
Hey idiots WEB SERVERS HAVE ACCESS LOGS the sites you visit already know every file you touch on their site...
Idiots? Really?
Did you read the article? Of course a single site can track whatever you do on that single site. Welcome to 1996.
The issue here is that third parties know what you do on EACH and EVERY site, and even if they claim to collect anonymous data, they are able to create scarily accurate profiles of individual users.
And let's not forget; famine is mostly an economical problem these days
I think it's fair to say that famine is mostly a political, not economic, problem these days. Since the second half of the 20th century the major famines have occurred concurrent with political instability, or in the midst of a civil war, or even used as a weapon and tool of repression and control (e.g. North Korea).
While this is technically correct, they have to get in bed with Ticketmaster if they want to play at any major venue. This is because Ticketmaster has exclusive rights to every major venue, so they are effectively the only game in town.
Thanks for the brilliant point-by-point rebuttal of my question. Clearly you are without match for your superior logic and rhetorical eloquence. Such greatness shines maybe once a generation, if we're all so lucky.
Theft' implies a misleading physical analogy which leads to all manner of mistaken beliefs which simply do not apply and make clear thinking and discussion at the legal and political level difficult.
Ahhh, the apologists always seem to lay in hiding, waiting, waiting, ready to spring their tired "it's not theft, it's copyright infringement" retort. Why is there always some shill who has to "correct" the record, as if it matters? Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft? Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the.mp3, but the content creator still has the.mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")? What's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about theft or infringement?
Regardless how you try to rationalize it away, you have illegally appropriated content to which you are not entitled, and have deprived the creator of payment and/or proper recognition, and you are a rat. Apparently folks here are OK being an infringing rat but get pretty defensive when they are called out as a thieving rat.
I have been here long enough to know about the Slashdot hive mind and the cognitive dissonance around this discussion. Lots of folks chanting freedom-this and fair-use-that, but they really just want their music, movies, and digital content free (as in beer).
Should just be a few minutes before this modded down to hell...
echo -n "I only kind of agree. The users are definitivelly posting junk. But can you really post anything useful in the length limit of tweeter ?" | wc -c
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing the lazy leeches with a bellicose sense of entitlement who feel entitled to illegally appropriate their hard earned property.
There is no equivalence between your example of common name domains JohnDoe.com and a real trademark CocaCola.com, or freecreditreport.com in this case.
Following up to my own post, no cookie for me!
If your name is Mike Rowe, then ignore this one point, for everyone else it stands.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear technology is used for producing electricity. China relies primarily for coal to fuel its electrical generation capability. All else equal, the introduction of nuclear technology would serve to displace coal, and have little or no effect on oil consumption.
Oil and its refined products are primarily a transportation fuel (and secondarily as a heating fuel). Oil demand in China is skyrocketing with the fast growing economy, construction, personal wealth, and demand for vehicles. So if anything, competition with China for oil will only increase, and will not materially be affected by new nuclear technology coming on line.
Just wanted to point out that this doesn't apply in all languages. When dealing with languages where int i; does initialize to a known value, it's unnecessary (though not wrong) to do int i=0;. For example, most languages that aren't C or C++. If you're coding in Java, you know that if you do int i; it will be initialized to 0 for you.
What you are saying is of course factually correct. However, I disagree with the conclusion that just because a language does something you shouldn't also try to make you intentions as clear as possible.
Any developer worth his salt will program in a variety of languages over his career, with each language having its own semantics, conventions, and quirks. In my opinion, becoming a great developer is about cultivating a certain mindset. A great developer develops bulletproof habits, hard-won conventions learned across all programming languages.
In Java you don't have to initialize variables because the language defines semantics for that situation. It's technically not wrong, and a developer who chooses to recognize this and not initialize their variables is a not necessarily a lazy or bad developer, but it would raise my eyebrow. This leads to developing a bad habit which will bite you when you go to another language with different semantics, and your newly-declared int gets set to whatever trash value was lying around on the stack. It's all about the mindset.
If you made a perfect copy, it's definitely legal to sell it for $2000 - as long as it doesn't say Prada on it. If you misrepresent the origin by infringing on the trademark (trademark applies here, not copyright), then you can't. Nor should you.
It is violating copyright protections.
So it's all OK then?
How is copying another's writings (to which you have no claim) and making it publicly available any different than taking music or movies and making them available?
Sounds similar to one of my favorite sayings:
"The more you own, the more you are owned."
Until such time there is tax on wealth instead of income, your point is interesting but irrelevant.
Hey idiots WEB SERVERS HAVE ACCESS LOGS the sites you visit already know every file you touch on their site ...
Idiots? Really?
Did you read the article? Of course a single site can track whatever you do on that single site. Welcome to 1996.
The issue here is that third parties know what you do on EACH and EVERY site, and even if they claim to collect anonymous data, they are able to create scarily accurate profiles of individual users.
Wish I had mod points for you today. Thanks for adding some light and not heat to the discussion.
And let's not forget; famine is mostly an economical problem these days
I think it's fair to say that famine is mostly a political, not economic, problem these days. Since the second half of the 20th century the major famines have occurred concurrent with political instability, or in the midst of a civil war, or even used as a weapon and tool of repression and control (e.g. North Korea).
Bands/promoters don't have to use Ticketmaster.
While this is technically correct, they have to get in bed with Ticketmaster if they want to play at any major venue. This is because Ticketmaster has exclusive rights to every major venue, so they are effectively the only game in town.
Thanks for the brilliant point-by-point rebuttal of my question. Clearly you are without match for your superior logic and rhetorical eloquence. Such greatness shines maybe once a generation, if we're all so lucky.
Theft' implies a misleading physical analogy which leads to all manner of mistaken beliefs which simply do not apply and make clear thinking and discussion at the legal and political level difficult.
P.S. Citation please.
Please explain "theft of cable TV service." That would fail your requirement for physical possession, yet people are charged with it every day.
Regardless how you try to rationalize it away, you have illegally appropriated content to which you are not entitled, and have deprived the creator of payment and/or proper recognition, and you are a rat. Apparently folks here are OK being an infringing rat but get pretty defensive when they are called out as a thieving rat.
I have been here long enough to know about the Slashdot hive mind and the cognitive dissonance around this discussion. Lots of folks chanting freedom-this and fair-use-that, but they really just want their music, movies, and digital content free (as in beer).
Should just be a few minutes before this modded down to hell...
136
Lean beef
Yeah: vessels going to sea today ...
Nuclear wessels, even.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing their customer base.
I'm still unclear on the business benefit to the MPAA companies that comes from suing the lazy leeches with a bellicose sense of entitlement who feel entitled to illegally appropriate their hard earned property.
FTFY. All clear now?
Quoth the piracy apologist, "So I'll simply avoid giving them my money, as well."
Oh really? So right up until you heard about this you were paying for legal access to indie content, were you? Of course you were.
This is INDIE film makers suing. Not MPAA, not Hollywood. Indies.
So it's OK to rip off Hollywood but not the independents?
So the moral of the story is, "if you get in bed with Microsoft, you're going to get screwed."
Slashdotted, pics here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30721501@N05/collections/72157621244472915/
Why does self defense even matter? That's irrelevant.
Enemy leadership are valid targets. Doesn't matter whether we use a drone, an Apache, or a grunt toting his M-16 to get the job done.
There is no equivalence between your example of common name domains JohnDoe.com and a real trademark CocaCola.com, or freecreditreport.com in this case.
Following up to my own post, no cookie for me!
If your name is Mike Rowe, then ignore this one point, for everyone else it stands. :)