The problem with piracy can be debated by; ethicists "Piracy hurts the consumer of the non-pirated good.", by economists "Piracy provides an unfair advantage to the pirates over the industry. Piracy causes market failure over sustained periods of pirate activity.", by business "Pirates no longer make it possible for businesses to operate for profit.", and also by government "Piracy is illegal and should not be allowed to continue.". There is a general, social agreement that piracy is bad in any form. It was not good for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates of the Caribbean siezed cargo and killed sailors. It isn't good now for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates sieze the goods.
While I am an outspoken opponent of the RIAA, it is not because I condone piracy. I sympathize with the individual producers and distributors who are members of the RIAA and are victims of piracy. Rather, I am an opponent of the RIAA because I do not agree with its methods. I do not agree with its collusion with the MPAA to suffer the consumer for its bloated payrolls and static tendencies with regards to there business model. However, that is for another post.
So, this is where I take issue with the RIAA. Profit exists when your revenue exceeds your expenditure. Profit is usually the single most important motivator for big business. Indeed, it is a cornerstone for modern business practices. The RIAA is no different. They are slaved to the marketplace as is any other business. I believe the RIAA in its current form is a collusion of businesses. This strikes me as a violation of anti-competive and anti-trust laws, but that is for another post as well. Because the RIAA is trying to keep costs down, they invariably (and predictably) will choose the most inexpensive and effective method to combat piracy. They will sue the makers of KaZaa to quit selling their product. This will work in the short-term for piracy that is relayed through KaZaa. In the process they will cause to suffer; file-sharing technologies, general consumers, and eventually ISP's, and other businesses.
Piracy will surface again in a different form if not KaZaa. Eventually, the RIAA will attempt to follow the next low-cost (with regards to the RIAA) alternative to combating piracy, and that would be to sue the ISP's for allowing pirated transmissions. They may even file in conjunction with the MPAA and BSA. This will cause all but the largest ISP's to fold or reach a settlement out of court to ban file-sharing (speculation on my part). Piracy will again arise only with a new face, because neither approach will solve the problem of piracy. Rather they act as a treatment for the symptoms of piracy. Again, it isn't necessarily the pirates that suffer. It is the general public and information exchange businesses. Another poster mentioned "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and I am inclined to agree with that statement. This and future attempts to halt piracy, lengthen time limits on copyrights and IP, and force technology companies to include control technologies (macrovision, copy-protection, and DRM) only serve to make example of the fact that the RIAA is unwilling or unable to change their business models to reflect the new marketplace.
So how do we stop piracy? The answer is as complex as it is simple. All "social" problems that plague our world societies are affected by the behavior of its people. Arguably we could attribute the absolute root cause to be a motivational issue that provides the impulse for a behavior. But the problem is enacted by people and therefore we must seek to control it first at that level and then a lower level if possible. If follows then that to stop piracy you target your attempts at the pirate. While it is infinitely easier to remove KaZaa than individual pirates, it does not solve the problem of piracy. Simply taking KaZaa away from pirates is a kin to taking guns from murderers. The murderers will stab, chop, poison, blow-up, run-down, choke, bludgeon, and use other methods to accomplish their goal. However, in the process you would have taken away guns, axes, rat-poison, flammable materials, automobiles, piano-wires, and bats (to name a few) from non-murderers. Additionally, the murderers would still exist in society as a problem.
The RIAA should seek to remove the pirate without harming others. Understand what motivates the pirate and remove their motivation not their tools. A tool cannot on its own enact piracy, it requires direction. A pirate can find new tools and invent new methods of piracy. A pirate cannot invent new motivations. Motivations are created for them by their environment.
Persue ISPs in court to recoup losses for piracy over the internet.
Rosen also "advised" the music industry to "develop technological protections instead of relying on enforcement to quash pirating".
Rosen essentially wants ISP's to pay a fee to the RIAA to compensate for the loss of revenues due to piracy across the net. She would also like to see the ISP's begin scanning P2P type files being swapped on the net for pirated works.
The successor for Rosen will undoubtedly try to take a more subtle approach. Essentially, we'll be seeing the equivalent of the "Softer Side of RIAA" advertisements. I would implore the Slashdot community to see through the new image to the cold, black, evil that is the essence of the RIAA (and MPAA). Hopefully, Rosen doesn't live in Salem lest she run the risk of being burned at the stake!
Does Microsoft's right to decide how they architect their OS software (to include Sun Java or not) impede the right of other vendors to sell their wares?
Microsoft has monopoly power when it comes to the consumer and small/business OS market. If Microsoft makes it purposely difficult to operate another vendor's software (on Windows) then they should be made to play fair.
Having said that, I don't believe that forcing Microsoft to ship their software with Sun's Java included will solve this problem. Rather it is a punishment, much as a spanking or fine. To solve this problem of monopolization (as evidenced by Microsoft), the computing industry should develop the following requirements for all OS offerings. A standard API set (much like the standard method for interpreting keyboards, mice, svga, etc...) into the OS system should be established. All vendor products would communicate with the OS via an Industry Standardized API, rather than the current and sometimes proprietary interfaces. This API would include video, audio, input, output, and other peripheral controls. The vendor software such as "MS Office", "Oracle", "Photoshop", etc... would work on any OS.
USB, FireWire, SCSI, IDE, PCI, SVGA, etc... would all go away. The Industry Standardized APIs would replace them with a single system. There would be fewer barriers to competition (all competitors would utilize the same playing field rather than playing only in SCSI or IDE for example) in that all hardware and software vendors would be required to offer their product through a standard API.
Sure, this isn't a perfect solution either, but I think it would solve more problems than it created. New computer hardware systems and new software would be platform independent (like Java). You could kind of use Java as an example. Their JVM could be construed as their standard API to execute a Java program (only which JVM you use depends on your OS). The old stuff (USB, FireWire, SCSI, IDE, etc...) would be phased out like an old OS. All new components and systems must be manufactured with the standard API. An academic consortium would make up the body of the Standards group and develop the standardized API. New legislation would force the industry groups to include the new API and only that API (no proprietary formats allowed) in their hardware/software. Would this slow technological breakthru and development? It is possible, but I would doubt it. The current various standards only serve make it more difficult to develop new software (how, what, and who do you support?) and hardware. There are too many choices, standards, and formats to choose from and more isn't always better. After all, isn't that the allure of Java and XML?
You might be right about Edison. I haven't studied much about Edison, nor do I remember what I did study.
I do believe, however, that it is important to resist making generalizations (as was done with the American History books and high school remark) as they are never accurate, and always lessens the credibility of the post. To make generalizations, only serves to increase the inaccuracy about this topic as much as a poorly researched history book.
There are still a few fighter jets that rely on mechanical systems. A-10 Thunderbolt, F-14 Tomcat (not all systems fly-by-wire), and heavies such as the B-52's(not all components fly-by-wire) Galaxies (a few systems are software controlled), Orions, and Tanker/refuellers to name a few.
I agree with you on the propulsion and brake controls. The foot-pedals came into being because all of the systems on the first vehicles were mechanical. You can push a brake pedal with your legs harder than you could pull a brake lever. There also wasn't an acceptable way of attaching a mechanical device to a steering wheel or column during the early days of automobiles. Besides, would you want to try to turn a car that didn't use power steering with one hand while trying to simultaneously apply the brake lever? The fact that the propulsion and brake controls have remained as a foot-pedal has as much to do with tradition as it does with practicality. Now that software controls have finally made it to the automobile, the floor-pedals should be replaced with a digital component. Cruise control was the first attempt at moving propulsion from the floor to the control panel. It eliminated fatigue (in the calves) and increased the gas milage of the vehicle. Why not remove all control components from the floor if they no longer need to be? It would simplify chassis design, and provide for more leg room.
A previous poster already mentioned the correct position of your weights. At rear of car just in front of the rear axle. Porsche makes mid-engine (which isn't truly middle of the car as you are seated in the middle of the car) cars for that same reason the poster illustrated (center of gravity near rear of car provides the greatest potential energy and minimizes the amount of friction on wheels). So I won't beat a dead horse.
As for the car design, I recommend the simple wedge shape. The lowest profile and smallest acute angle (as measured from the front of the car) you can acheive will provide you the most return.
employee (in this case) willingness to act in accordance with the code
the fair and consistent enforcement of the code with punishment for behavior deviating from the code.
A Code of Ethics is really only a way to make a statement. Something that says "We are an ethical company. It is okay to give us your money and to trust us." On the planet "Perfect" a Code of Ethics is not needed, as everyone is ethical in their behavior. If you don't have employees that you can trust to behave appropriately, then you shouldn't have hired those employees in the first place and need to let them go.
Obviously, if you are nabbing MP3s from the internet or looking up pornography while using corporate bandwidth (both items not considered ethical in the eyes of businesses that don't sell porn or MP3s) then you are mis-behaving. Should you be fired? Should you get demoted? The punishments vary from company to company. The enforcement of the code needs to be consistently applied (to be fair) and punishments sufficient enough to act as a deterrent. Here is an example that we all are familiar with which substitutes the law for a code of ethics. [ We all know that a Code of Ethics is not a set of Laws (for the legal folks who read this). However, they are sufficiently similar in scope and meaning to make for an analogy.] You know you are breaking the law when you speed. Why do you speed if it will break the law? The mental math in your head tells you that for speeding 10-15 miles over the limit (which is a guess on the average) you probably can get away by paying only $250-300 for the ticket. Consider your mindset if you were fined $1000 dollars for your first infraction and then forced to surrender your vehicle for the following offense. As draconic as it sounds, it would probably serve as an efficient deterrent to speeding. You would, at least, give more than a fleeting thought to the act of speeding.
Ethics are the same way. You either don't need to post a code because you don't have a problem, or else you need to post a code with real enforcement. Otherwise, your code is simply icing and not cake.
The only problem I see with the Smart Solution is commercials. Now of course we don't live on the planet "Perfect", but the only reason I would consider buying a PVR (instead of manufacturing one with the current products available on the market) is to have the ability to skip commercials. There are others like me as well. Commercials are my pet peeve. Used to, you would go to the movie and pay your $4-7 (US) to see a flick. You would only have to sit through previews of upcoming movies. That wasn't too bad, at least you could see what the studios were coming up with. Now, you go pay your $6-9 (US) for a ticket and you get to sit through the previews AND the commercials (HP seems to be the one most popular in my movie excursions)
I wouldn't mind putting up with the commercials if I didn't have to pay for the ticket. I would expect there to be a tirade of commercials. Used to be, before cable, when television was free. The commercial broadcasts were called commercial broadcasts because the advertisers (sponsers) picked up the tab for transmitting the show. For those that can rememember (ask your parents) there was the Texaco Star Theater. Soap Operas were called Soap Operas because the sponsors for the show were usually the manufacturers of Wash Powder. You watched the show for free because of the commercial advertisements.
This is my understanding of the current business model. Please correct me if I am wrong.Now, we pay for the cable or satellite service. I assume that our monthly fees are for upgrades, extensions, and maintenance on the existing infrastructure. The companies pay big bucks to sponsor a show (think superbowl advertising) based on how many viewers it carries. That is why we can afford to pay a television actor/actress big money for making a television show. The Networks also pay big bucks to air a show and get paid big bucks by broadcasters for access to network programming. Now, with all of this big money being tossed around, why has the syndication model gotten worse (going from free transmission via antenae to paid viewing for cable and satellite)? Granted, there are still some free channels as a requirement. However, the studios/broadcasters/SAG/other-media-groups are lobbying to have that requirement diappear with the HDTV broadcasting.
I believe that the current model is broken, and the new models being offered by the media consortium don't really have as much to do with the needs or good of the public as they would have you believe. I believe that the model is broken because of the effect of the money and the change in priorities. I think that we could still enjoy free television with a shift in the priorities of the network providers, studios, and advertisers. Think about how much it costs to make a television show (millions of dollars). Now, think about what percentage of that gets paid to the actors/actresses and directors. The fixed costs would be film, equipment, and sets (to name a few). The variable costs are always wages. Why do we pay so much money to a person whose sole job is to pretend (and be convincing) that they are someone else? There isn't a convincing reason in my book. If the show is popular they get paid, if the show isn't popular they should get canned (like the rest of the working world good work = payment, bad work = loss of job). With all the millions of dollars you save in wages you could funnel back to the broadcasters to upgrade, maintain, and extend their infrastructure to reach new viewers. Advertisers would still sponsor show productions by providing money to production companies based on how well their advertised product did in which spot (they sell 100 mop-alot mops when advertised during barney shows and 1,000,000 when advertised during "The Bold and The Beautiful" shows). This encourages good shows to be produced. The advertisers get their money when people buy a product. So our new model works like this: Consumer gets free tv signals from Broadcaster; Broadcaster gets money for infrastructure from Networks (who would be sunk without the broadcaster); Networks get money for production of shows from Advertisers/Product Manufacturer; Advertisers/Product Manufacturers get money from consumers who watch commercial and see the product fulfilling a need they have. (In my mind the best possible thing would be to have a commercial channel that allows you to view advertisements from all competing brands of products based on their uses. Maybe when interactive tv comes into being.)
I like this model, it's simple, concise, and more importantly it places the consumer first. What do you think? Possible, stupid, don't care?
The arguments of the astrophysicists make some logical sense when you put it in this context: The finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite.
There exists a problem in the modern model of mathematics. That problem is essentially, how to describe infinity. Where does infinity fit in the model? What is infinity? There have been numerous researchers that discuss the topic, but those that research the topic in depth haven't faired well in life. An example would be Georg Cantor. A gifted mathemetician who was seeking to explain infinity and provide a place for it in modern mathematics. Unfortunately, his search for the theory placed him in a sanitarium on numerous occasions and eventually cost him his life. The Jewish Cabalist movement seeks to explain infinity, however (according to them) only a select few Rabbis and people are able to maintain contact with reality after touching infinity. A good book to read on the mathematical quest is "The Mystery of the Aleph". This book infers rather convincingly the link between the desire to understand the infinite and the problems faced by limited (finite) capacity for thought.
You know, the question "what comes first", is very interesting. It reminds me of the quest to prove or disprove infinity in mathematics (particularly set theory). Georg Cantor did some work on infinity. The Jewish Cabalists are doing work on infinity. Apparently, it isn't safe. All individuals who have done significant work on trying to understand infinity have suffered mental crises and/or died. One, if they were so inclined, could infer that the finite mind is not able to grasp infinity. Interesting food for thought don't you think?
UFO Land? You think that they might have some carnival rides instead of offering plates? Maybe they have a "Space Mountain" or "Spinning Disk-go-Round".
Here is an interesting site for review the Raelians. You want to know more?I'm do not know exactly who this individual(s) is or if they are a legitimate store of information, but it is at least funny. If the information on that page is correct, then there is definitely no reason to doubt their claims (snicker, snicker). Afterall, people who claim to know the "real" origins of the human species without any proof to the positive should be believed. Of course, I must confess, I too know the real origin of the human species. I'll be publishing it soon, at www.realoriginofthehumanspecies.com. I'll only request a modest donation from members to; keep the website up; to establish the commune for my many wives; to subvert the minds of the young, weak, and ill; and most importantly so I can start my own line of cosmetics for men. Please feel free to sign yourself over to me, to serve as my personal slave for the good of mankind. I'll have those forms on the website as well. I'll develop a working prototype fusion reactor so that I can get some publicity which will somehow (at least in my mind) validate my claims to know the true origins of the human species.
It is a well known fact that reputation and peer review are hallmarks of the scientific community. To be regarded as legit, you must publish your work in a respected journal that is peer reviewed. To be credible, you must have a solid reputation for producing publishable work that follows the rigorous methods of science and is repeatable. Having said that, do you think that the Raelian Movement has both requirments (reputation and peer review) to be credible scientists? I think I'll wait for the publications to be peer reviewed and the findings replicated before I believe this story.
Additionally, we don't know the source of the numbers. Were they adjusted scores? Were they averages over a long period of time or short period of time? What were the methods for sampling and what was the sample? How were the samples chosen?
I would submit this information from the cato institute. While not rich in statistics, it does provide reputable reports. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
You would be wise to heed your own words. You make a rather large generalization by your statement concerning the intelligence of "most" gun owners. While undoubtedly you are angry at some posts, your hasty remark only serves to weaken your point. It has been said that such actions are often the last ditch efforts by individuals who have exhausted all other avenues of options.
Comparing a gun to a car or an aeroplane is rather pointless because a car has a primary role that is was designed to fill - it is a form of transport. A gun however, especially a handgun has only one designed purpose - to kill and maim. A knife is designed not as a weapon but as a tool. Society wouldn't collapse tomorrow if magically all guns disappeared but it would if we had no planes or cars or trains. It is fair to say that guns can also be used for sport shooting on a range, however there is still no need for learning and training and so simulating the act of homicide which is all I can see from shooting handguns on a range. The other use of guns is for hunting which I for one have no problem with. Guns reqired for this kind of work are not however the kind of derringer or handgun that I am refering to.
Interesting point. Cars, airplanes, and guns are all tools of society differing only by the intent of the designer. A car is designed to speed ground transport. An airplane could be used (inefficiently) as ground transport but it is more appropriately used as air transport. The gun, handgun in particular, is designed as a weapon. However it is more versatile in its use than either a car or an airplane. You can kill someone or injury them (here a choice by the user must be made). You can shoot targets for sport and practice (competition is again a user choice). You can use it as a paperweight (by the accounts of other posts). A final choice is, you don't use it. A knife is a tool that can be used as a weapon. The stilleto, K-Bar, and bayonnet spring to mind as my first choices. You can even use a box cutter, ask Al Quaeda. They successfully used a box cutter to commandeer an airplane (not a gun, and certainly not designed to be a weapon). I will spare you the details of how they used the airplane as a weapon. It is well known. Which raises another, equally important point. In addition to the "intent" of the designer for the tool, there is an "intent" of the wielder of the tool. You can use a knife to cut rope or necks, your choice. You can use a gun to shoot people or paper, your choice. You can use a car to drive over to your neighbors, or drive over your neighbor. Again, your choice. I don't think you will solve the problem of violent crime (gun or related or not) by banning guns.
Additionally, I wouldn't advise using a gun without training or some form of instruction. That is how accidents happen. You certainly don't drive a car without instruction, nor do you use a powersaw. Wouldn't you want to afford the same caution to a gun? Where I'm from, we would call that responsibile gun ownership.
I could see why you would fear an easily concealable derringer or handgun. But then, I would hope that the person who wants to accost you would have the same fear.
So what is the cultural need for the right to bear arms. Are you as an American really afraid that a shipload of us English are going to sail on over and invade and try to tax you for all that tea you've been drinking? Infact in world politics the major aggressor at this time infact appears to be the USA. In what way are you threatened by an invasion force that requires the population to be armed. When have you EVER been threatened by such a force since the birth of your nation? So infact you have no cultural need for guns other than an antiquated throwback to a colonial era... sounds like a problem us British should be facing really? Surley the sign of a healthy and vibrant culture is that it is flexible and constantly evolving, not requing a lynch pin from a bygone age.
I don't think the right to bear arms was drafted to prevent invasion, rather I believe it was drafted to prevent the national government from becoming more powerful than the populace it serves. However, it would be difficult for a foreigner to understand that right. Especially, since many native borns do not understand that right.
Saying that your gun(s) are safe because we should trust you with them just isn't something that the world in general should be prepared to do. If your guns didn't exist then they couldn't be stolen and put to evil use. If you have a right to own a gun specuifically designed to kill and maim in order to protect yourself why shouldn't everyone. That includes people such as Saddam Hussain. Currently the world lead by America is threatening to start a war agains Iraq because they are suspected of building weapons that are specifically designed to kill and maim - weapons that I may add those that appear to want to instigate that war already have. in vast quantities. Why is it alright for you to defend yourself with a tool of death, but not the Iraqi's even though they are as a nation and culture far more at threat then you are. The question is the same as are the arguments it's really just a matter of scale.
I fail to see how this applies to America's constitutional right and it's inclination to repel foreign threats to the constitution. I would hardly categorize the weapons available to day as lynch pins from bygone days. I don't think the argument for the second amendment right to own guns has any bearing on Saddam Hussein. Perhaps if he applied for citizenship, was naturalized, and then bought a gun, it might apply.
Finally why is the answer to agression more aggression. If I threw a paperweight at an armed robber I'd imagine that would increace my likleyhood of being shot. If I pulled a gun out I would expect to be shot. Really it's a stupid idea to escalate the threat and potential for violence in any situation.
That isn't a very intelligent statement. An agressive act isn't necessarily warranted in all situations. However, sometimes it is your only recourse. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
I don't hate guns, I believe them to be a valuable tool in the hands of skilled and trained personel for use in the military and for hunting and for sport. However personally I find guns and especially handguns incredibly threatening, even ones that I know to be replica - I think of this as a sensible fear and respect for a tool which has only one sinister purpose. I guess this makes me biased. Howwever I do feel that if there weren't guns in society then I wouldn't need one to protect me.
You might be biased, buy you have a right to an opinion. You are right, if there weren't guns in society then you wouldn't need one to protect you (although I doubt seriously you carry one nor feel a need to now), although there might be a lot of folks walking around with crossbows, halberds, short-swords, long-swords, bows, maces, etc....
I would say that the overwhelming reason why the US (or any other country for that matter) has any crime (violent, non-violent, armed, dis-armed) is that a portion of its citizenry has a compulsion to commit such acts. Guns don't commit crimes, people do. Take away the guns, and the criminals will use another tool. I don't remember the Al Queada using guns to take out a building, rather they used box-cutters and airplanes.
I would suggest that you not speculate or make generalised statements regarding a complicated issue such as criminal activity
You have a right to that opinion (as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under freedom of speech). I have a right to own my gun. You, quite voraciously, excersized that right. Why then, should I be disallowed my right to own and use my gun? I will agree to cede my right to own a gun if you agree to cede your right to free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with piracy can be debated by; ethicists "Piracy hurts the consumer of the non-pirated good.", by economists "Piracy provides an unfair advantage to the pirates over the industry. Piracy causes market failure over sustained periods of pirate activity.", by business "Pirates no longer make it possible for businesses to operate for profit.", and also by government "Piracy is illegal and should not be allowed to continue.". There is a general, social agreement that piracy is bad in any form. It was not good for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates of the Caribbean siezed cargo and killed sailors. It isn't good now for the shipping industry or product producers when pirates sieze the goods.
While I am an outspoken opponent of the RIAA, it is not because I condone piracy. I sympathize with the individual producers and distributors who are members of the RIAA and are victims of piracy. Rather, I am an opponent of the RIAA because I do not agree with its methods. I do not agree with its collusion with the MPAA to suffer the consumer for its bloated payrolls and static tendencies with regards to there business model. However, that is for another post.
So, this is where I take issue with the RIAA. Profit exists when your revenue exceeds your expenditure. Profit is usually the single most important motivator for big business. Indeed, it is a cornerstone for modern business practices. The RIAA is no different. They are slaved to the marketplace as is any other business. I believe the RIAA in its current form is a collusion of businesses. This strikes me as a violation of anti-competive and anti-trust laws, but that is for another post as well. Because the RIAA is trying to keep costs down, they invariably (and predictably) will choose the most inexpensive and effective method to combat piracy. They will sue the makers of KaZaa to quit selling their product. This will work in the short-term for piracy that is relayed through KaZaa. In the process they will cause to suffer; file-sharing technologies, general consumers, and eventually ISP's, and other businesses.
Piracy will surface again in a different form if not KaZaa. Eventually, the RIAA will attempt to follow the next low-cost (with regards to the RIAA) alternative to combating piracy, and that would be to sue the ISP's for allowing pirated transmissions. They may even file in conjunction with the MPAA and BSA. This will cause all but the largest ISP's to fold or reach a settlement out of court to ban file-sharing (speculation on my part). Piracy will again arise only with a new face, because neither approach will solve the problem of piracy. Rather they act as a treatment for the symptoms of piracy. Again, it isn't necessarily the pirates that suffer. It is the general public and information exchange businesses. Another poster mentioned "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and I am inclined to agree with that statement. This and future attempts to halt piracy, lengthen time limits on copyrights and IP, and force technology companies to include control technologies (macrovision, copy-protection, and DRM) only serve to make example of the fact that the RIAA is unwilling or unable to change their business models to reflect the new marketplace.
So how do we stop piracy? The answer is as complex as it is simple. All "social" problems that plague our world societies are affected by the behavior of its people. Arguably we could attribute the absolute root cause to be a motivational issue that provides the impulse for a behavior. But the problem is enacted by people and therefore we must seek to control it first at that level and then a lower level if possible. If follows then that to stop piracy you target your attempts at the pirate. While it is infinitely easier to remove KaZaa than individual pirates, it does not solve the problem of piracy. Simply taking KaZaa away from pirates is a kin to taking guns from murderers. The murderers will stab, chop, poison, blow-up, run-down, choke, bludgeon, and use other methods to accomplish their goal. However, in the process you would have taken away guns, axes, rat-poison, flammable materials, automobiles, piano-wires, and bats (to name a few) from non-murderers. Additionally, the murderers would still exist in society as a problem.
The RIAA should seek to remove the pirate without harming others. Understand what motivates the pirate and remove their motivation not their tools. A tool cannot on its own enact piracy, it requires direction. A pirate can find new tools and invent new methods of piracy. A pirate cannot invent new motivations. Motivations are created for them by their environment.
Whoops! I'm sorry. I pressed the Submit instead of Preview.
The story can be found here.
Rosen essentially wants ISP's to pay a fee to the RIAA to compensate for the loss of revenues due to piracy across the net. She would also like to see the ISP's begin scanning P2P type files being swapped on the net for pirated works.
The successor for Rosen will undoubtedly try to take a more subtle approach. Essentially, we'll be seeing the equivalent of the "Softer Side of RIAA" advertisements. I would implore the Slashdot community to see through the new image to the cold, black, evil that is the essence of the RIAA (and MPAA). Hopefully, Rosen doesn't live in Salem lest she run the risk of being burned at the stake!
In another article posted on Wired about ISPs being the new target of the RIAA, Rosen mentions two tactics with serious issues.
Does Microsoft's right to decide how they architect their OS software (to include Sun Java or not) impede the right of other vendors to sell their wares?
Microsoft has monopoly power when it comes to the consumer and small/business OS market. If Microsoft makes it purposely difficult to operate another vendor's software (on Windows) then they should be made to play fair.
Having said that, I don't believe that forcing Microsoft to ship their software with Sun's Java included will solve this problem. Rather it is a punishment, much as a spanking or fine. To solve this problem of monopolization (as evidenced by Microsoft), the computing industry should develop the following requirements for all OS offerings. A standard API set (much like the standard method for interpreting keyboards, mice, svga, etc...) into the OS system should be established. All vendor products would communicate with the OS via an Industry Standardized API, rather than the current and sometimes proprietary interfaces. This API would include video, audio, input, output, and other peripheral controls. The vendor software such as "MS Office", "Oracle", "Photoshop", etc... would work on any OS.
USB, FireWire, SCSI, IDE, PCI, SVGA, etc... would all go away. The Industry Standardized APIs would replace them with a single system. There would be fewer barriers to competition (all competitors would utilize the same playing field rather than playing only in SCSI or IDE for example) in that all hardware and software vendors would be required to offer their product through a standard API.
Sure, this isn't a perfect solution either, but I think it would solve more problems than it created. New computer hardware systems and new software would be platform independent (like Java). You could kind of use Java as an example. Their JVM could be construed as their standard API to execute a Java program (only which JVM you use depends on your OS). The old stuff (USB, FireWire, SCSI, IDE, etc...) would be phased out like an old OS. All new components and systems must be manufactured with the standard API. An academic consortium would make up the body of the Standards group and develop the standardized API. New legislation would force the industry groups to include the new API and only that API (no proprietary formats allowed) in their hardware/software. Would this slow technological breakthru and development? It is possible, but I would doubt it. The current various standards only serve make it more difficult to develop new software (how, what, and who do you support?) and hardware. There are too many choices, standards, and formats to choose from and more isn't always better. After all, isn't that the allure of Java and XML?
You might be right about Edison. I haven't studied much about Edison, nor do I remember what I did study.
I do believe, however, that it is important to resist making generalizations (as was done with the American History books and high school remark) as they are never accurate, and always lessens the credibility of the post. To make generalizations, only serves to increase the inaccuracy about this topic as much as a poorly researched history book.
I might be mistaken but isn't the GMC Sierra a "brake-by-wire" system?
There are still a few fighter jets that rely on mechanical systems. A-10 Thunderbolt, F-14 Tomcat (not all systems fly-by-wire), and heavies such as the B-52's(not all components fly-by-wire) Galaxies (a few systems are software controlled), Orions, and Tanker/refuellers to name a few.
I agree with you on the propulsion and brake controls. The foot-pedals came into being because all of the systems on the first vehicles were mechanical. You can push a brake pedal with your legs harder than you could pull a brake lever. There also wasn't an acceptable way of attaching a mechanical device to a steering wheel or column during the early days of automobiles. Besides, would you want to try to turn a car that didn't use power steering with one hand while trying to simultaneously apply the brake lever? The fact that the propulsion and brake controls have remained as a foot-pedal has as much to do with tradition as it does with practicality. Now that software controls have finally made it to the automobile, the floor-pedals should be replaced with a digital component. Cruise control was the first attempt at moving propulsion from the floor to the control panel. It eliminated fatigue (in the calves) and increased the gas milage of the vehicle. Why not remove all control components from the floor if they no longer need to be? It would simplify chassis design, and provide for more leg room.
A previous poster already mentioned the correct position of your weights. At rear of car just in front of the rear axle. Porsche makes mid-engine (which isn't truly middle of the car as you are seated in the middle of the car) cars for that same reason the poster illustrated (center of gravity near rear of car provides the greatest potential energy and minimizes the amount of friction on wheels). So I won't beat a dead horse.
As for the car design, I recommend the simple wedge shape. The lowest profile and smallest acute angle (as measured from the front of the car) you can acheive will provide you the most return.
employee (in this case) willingness to act in accordance with the code
the fair and consistent enforcement of the code with punishment for behavior deviating from the code.
A Code of Ethics is really only a way to make a statement. Something that says "We are an ethical company. It is okay to give us your money and to trust us." On the planet "Perfect" a Code of Ethics is not needed, as everyone is ethical in their behavior. If you don't have employees that you can trust to behave appropriately, then you shouldn't have hired those employees in the first place and need to let them go.
Obviously, if you are nabbing MP3s from the internet or looking up pornography while using corporate bandwidth (both items not considered ethical in the eyes of businesses that don't sell porn or MP3s) then you are mis-behaving. Should you be fired? Should you get demoted? The punishments vary from company to company. The enforcement of the code needs to be consistently applied (to be fair) and punishments sufficient enough to act as a deterrent. Here is an example that we all are familiar with which substitutes the law for a code of ethics. [ We all know that a Code of Ethics is not a set of Laws (for the legal folks who read this). However, they are sufficiently similar in scope and meaning to make for an analogy.] You know you are breaking the law when you speed. Why do you speed if it will break the law? The mental math in your head tells you that for speeding 10-15 miles over the limit (which is a guess on the average) you probably can get away by paying only $250-300 for the ticket. Consider your mindset if you were fined $1000 dollars for your first infraction and then forced to surrender your vehicle for the following offense. As draconic as it sounds, it would probably serve as an efficient deterrent to speeding. You would, at least, give more than a fleeting thought to the act of speeding.
Ethics are the same way. You either don't need to post a code because you don't have a problem, or else you need to post a code with real enforcement. Otherwise, your code is simply icing and not cake.
The only problem I see with the Smart Solution is commercials. Now of course we don't live on the planet "Perfect", but the only reason I would consider buying a PVR (instead of manufacturing one with the current products available on the market) is to have the ability to skip commercials. There are others like me as well. Commercials are my pet peeve. Used to, you would go to the movie and pay your $4-7 (US) to see a flick. You would only have to sit through previews of upcoming movies. That wasn't too bad, at least you could see what the studios were coming up with. Now, you go pay your $6-9 (US) for a ticket and you get to sit through the previews AND the commercials (HP seems to be the one most popular in my movie excursions)
I wouldn't mind putting up with the commercials if I didn't have to pay for the ticket. I would expect there to be a tirade of commercials. Used to be, before cable, when television was free. The commercial broadcasts were called commercial broadcasts because the advertisers (sponsers) picked up the tab for transmitting the show. For those that can rememember (ask your parents) there was the Texaco Star Theater. Soap Operas were called Soap Operas because the sponsors for the show were usually the manufacturers of Wash Powder. You watched the show for free because of the commercial advertisements.
This is my understanding of the current business model. Please correct me if I am wrong.Now, we pay for the cable or satellite service. I assume that our monthly fees are for upgrades, extensions, and maintenance on the existing infrastructure. The companies pay big bucks to sponsor a show (think superbowl advertising) based on how many viewers it carries. That is why we can afford to pay a television actor/actress big money for making a television show. The Networks also pay big bucks to air a show and get paid big bucks by broadcasters for access to network programming. Now, with all of this big money being tossed around, why has the syndication model gotten worse (going from free transmission via antenae to paid viewing for cable and satellite)? Granted, there are still some free channels as a requirement. However, the studios/broadcasters/SAG/other-media-groups are lobbying to have that requirement diappear with the HDTV broadcasting.
I believe that the current model is broken, and the new models being offered by the media consortium don't really have as much to do with the needs or good of the public as they would have you believe. I believe that the model is broken because of the effect of the money and the change in priorities. I think that we could still enjoy free television with a shift in the priorities of the network providers, studios, and advertisers. Think about how much it costs to make a television show (millions of dollars). Now, think about what percentage of that gets paid to the actors/actresses and directors. The fixed costs would be film, equipment, and sets (to name a few). The variable costs are always wages. Why do we pay so much money to a person whose sole job is to pretend (and be convincing) that they are someone else? There isn't a convincing reason in my book. If the show is popular they get paid, if the show isn't popular they should get canned (like the rest of the working world good work = payment, bad work = loss of job). With all the millions of dollars you save in wages you could funnel back to the broadcasters to upgrade, maintain, and extend their infrastructure to reach new viewers. Advertisers would still sponsor show productions by providing money to production companies based on how well their advertised product did in which spot (they sell 100 mop-alot mops when advertised during barney shows and 1,000,000 when advertised during "The Bold and The Beautiful" shows). This encourages good shows to be produced. The advertisers get their money when people buy a product. So our new model works like this: Consumer gets free tv signals from Broadcaster; Broadcaster gets money for infrastructure from Networks (who would be sunk without the broadcaster); Networks get money for production of shows from Advertisers/Product Manufacturer; Advertisers/Product Manufacturers get money from consumers who watch commercial and see the product fulfilling a need they have. (In my mind the best possible thing would be to have a commercial channel that allows you to view advertisements from all competing brands of products based on their uses. Maybe when interactive tv comes into being.)
I like this model, it's simple, concise, and more importantly it places the consumer first. What do you think? Possible, stupid, don't care?
The arguments of the astrophysicists make some logical sense when you put it in this context: The finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite.
There exists a problem in the modern model of mathematics. That problem is essentially, how to describe infinity. Where does infinity fit in the model? What is infinity? There have been numerous researchers that discuss the topic, but those that research the topic in depth haven't faired well in life. An example would be Georg Cantor. A gifted mathemetician who was seeking to explain infinity and provide a place for it in modern mathematics. Unfortunately, his search for the theory placed him in a sanitarium on numerous occasions and eventually cost him his life. The Jewish Cabalist movement seeks to explain infinity, however (according to them) only a select few Rabbis and people are able to maintain contact with reality after touching infinity. A good book to read on the mathematical quest is "The Mystery of the Aleph". This book infers rather convincingly the link between the desire to understand the infinite and the problems faced by limited (finite) capacity for thought.
You know, The Mystery of the Aleph is pretty good. If you like
Yep, I think that it is a hoax. However, I am open to the independent analysis (a truly independent analysis).
Yes, she is the bride of frankenstein. That is the next big revelation of the Raelian movement.
You know, the question "what comes first", is very interesting. It reminds me of the quest to prove or disprove infinity in mathematics (particularly set theory). Georg Cantor did some work on infinity. The Jewish Cabalists are doing work on infinity. Apparently, it isn't safe. All individuals who have done significant work on trying to understand infinity have suffered mental crises and/or died. One, if they were so inclined, could infer that the finite mind is not able to grasp infinity. Interesting food for thought don't you think?
UFO Land? You think that they might have some carnival rides instead of offering plates? Maybe they have a "Space Mountain" or "Spinning Disk-go-Round".
Here is an interesting site for review the Raelians. You want to know more?I'm do not know exactly who this individual(s) is or if they are a legitimate store of information, but it is at least funny. If the information on that page is correct, then there is definitely no reason to doubt their claims (snicker, snicker). Afterall, people who claim to know the "real" origins of the human species without any proof to the positive should be believed. Of course, I must confess, I too know the real origin of the human species. I'll be publishing it soon, at www.realoriginofthehumanspecies.com. I'll only request a modest donation from members to; keep the website up; to establish the commune for my many wives; to subvert the minds of the young, weak, and ill; and most importantly so I can start my own line of cosmetics for men. Please feel free to sign yourself over to me, to serve as my personal slave for the good of mankind. I'll have those forms on the website as well. I'll develop a working prototype fusion reactor so that I can get some publicity which will somehow (at least in my mind) validate my claims to know the true origins of the human species.It is a well known fact that reputation and peer review are hallmarks of the scientific community. To be regarded as legit, you must publish your work in a respected journal that is peer reviewed. To be credible, you must have a solid reputation for producing publishable work that follows the rigorous methods of science and is repeatable. Having said that, do you think that the Raelian Movement has both requirments (reputation and peer review) to be credible scientists? I think I'll wait for the publications to be peer reviewed and the findings replicated before I believe this story.
Additionally, we don't know the source of the numbers. Were they adjusted scores? Were they averages over a long period of time or short period of time? What were the methods for sampling and what was the sample? How were the samples chosen?
I would submit this information from the cato institute. While not rich in statistics, it does provide reputable reports. http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
You would be wise to heed your own words. You make a rather large generalization by your statement concerning the intelligence of "most" gun owners. While undoubtedly you are angry at some posts, your hasty remark only serves to weaken your point. It has been said that such actions are often the last ditch efforts by individuals who have exhausted all other avenues of options.
Interesting point. Cars, airplanes, and guns are all tools of society differing only by the intent of the designer. A car is designed to speed ground transport. An airplane could be used (inefficiently) as ground transport but it is more appropriately used as air transport. The gun, handgun in particular, is designed as a weapon. However it is more versatile in its use than either a car or an airplane. You can kill someone or injury them (here a choice by the user must be made). You can shoot targets for sport and practice (competition is again a user choice). You can use it as a paperweight (by the accounts of other posts). A final choice is, you don't use it. A knife is a tool that can be used as a weapon. The stilleto, K-Bar, and bayonnet spring to mind as my first choices. You can even use a box cutter, ask Al Quaeda. They successfully used a box cutter to commandeer an airplane (not a gun, and certainly not designed to be a weapon). I will spare you the details of how they used the airplane as a weapon. It is well known. Which raises another, equally important point. In addition to the "intent" of the designer for the tool, there is an "intent" of the wielder of the tool. You can use a knife to cut rope or necks, your choice. You can use a gun to shoot people or paper, your choice. You can use a car to drive over to your neighbors, or drive over your neighbor. Again, your choice. I don't think you will solve the problem of violent crime (gun or related or not) by banning guns.
Additionally, I wouldn't advise using a gun without training or some form of instruction. That is how accidents happen. You certainly don't drive a car without instruction, nor do you use a powersaw. Wouldn't you want to afford the same caution to a gun? Where I'm from, we would call that responsibile gun ownership.
I could see why you would fear an easily concealable derringer or handgun. But then, I would hope that the person who wants to accost you would have the same fear.
I don't think the right to bear arms was drafted to prevent invasion, rather I believe it was drafted to prevent the national government from becoming more powerful than the populace it serves. However, it would be difficult for a foreigner to understand that right. Especially, since many native borns do not understand that right.
I fail to see how this applies to America's constitutional right and it's inclination to repel foreign threats to the constitution. I would hardly categorize the weapons available to day as lynch pins from bygone days. I don't think the argument for the second amendment right to own guns has any bearing on Saddam Hussein. Perhaps if he applied for citizenship, was naturalized, and then bought a gun, it might apply.
That isn't a very intelligent statement. An agressive act isn't necessarily warranted in all situations. However, sometimes it is your only recourse. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
You might be biased, buy you have a right to an opinion. You are right, if there weren't guns in society then you wouldn't need one to protect you (although I doubt seriously you carry one nor feel a need to now), although there might be a lot of folks walking around with crossbows, halberds, short-swords, long-swords, bows, maces, etc....I would say that the overwhelming reason why the US (or any other country for that matter) has any crime (violent, non-violent, armed, dis-armed) is that a portion of its citizenry has a compulsion to commit such acts. Guns don't commit crimes, people do. Take away the guns, and the criminals will use another tool. I don't remember the Al Queada using guns to take out a building, rather they used box-cutters and airplanes.
I would suggest that you not speculate or make generalised statements regarding a complicated issue such as criminal activity
You have a right to that opinion (as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under freedom of speech). I have a right to own my gun. You, quite voraciously, excersized that right. Why then, should I be disallowed my right to own and use my gun? I will agree to cede my right to own a gun if you agree to cede your right to free speech.