The little beer nanites always seem to try and take over, and then those placid Scotch nanobots who were sittting there minding their own business stir up a revolution and pretty soon you've got one of them saying to the other "this stomach ain't big enough for the both of us.." and you know where that leads.
Actually Pabst Blue Ribbon is a key component of a concoction my friends created that they like to call "Hops, Skip, and Go Naked".
The secret is to use the absolute crappiest beer you can find. Stuff that's sort of alcoholic, but sort of not like beer. Pabst Blue Ribbon serves this purpose perfectly. They tried to make it with better beers, and it always turns out wrong.
Of course, like most alcoholic concoctions created by a bunch of drunken teenagers (as they were at the time, so the story goes), this one was made from whatever was at hand, mixed together in a bucket and imbibed until unconsciousness or debauchery ensued.
Of course, over the intervening years, they've refined the process somewhat, eliminating and substituting various ingredients to perfect this liquid love. I believe vodka and frozen lemonade concentrate are involved, but no matter how they tried to purge it from the recipe, Pabst Blue Ribbon remains to this day, that secret addition that inevitably provides the "Go Naked" part of the drink.
It's interesting that you cite the prevalence of firearms as a factor in determining whether to make them illegal (or certain types of them) and yet a similar situation with regards to drug use seems to make no difference to legislators waging their war on drugs.
As you point out - there are many factors involved in these decisionsm, and the Constitution is only one of them. Just don't leave out money.
I don't think you understand the premise either. Economics takes into account all those other factors or it becomes irrelevant. To say "just the economic" is to miss the point of economics entirely.
Well I consider myself fortunate that I get only about 3 calls every day or so (not counting however many I get when I'm not at home to answer them).
Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush. There are certainly those for whom telemarketing is exactly the type of job they are most suited. These are definitely those who take advantage of Alzheimers sufferers and other slimy practices. You'll find them selling used cars as well.
But I'd say, from my limited experience in the matter, that the majority of my contact is with those who stammer my name and stagger through their rote-learned spiel.
I pity these people.
That doesn't mean I stick around listening to them prattle on.
I'm certainly not Ghandi, or blessed with any special patience. I just don't see why I should bother wasting my breath and anger on them. I've known several people who have been involved with hard-sell lines of work. One was door-to-door, selling those little discount cards, the ones where the pitch is "$200 worth of value for only $25". He was the most laid back guy in the world and was just looking for some cash so he could make next months rent. He told me how the lead sales people would get everyone together in the morning and whip them into this frenzy like a coach gives a pep talk to a team. It was insane how well it worked. He was overtaken with selling zeal for several hours after each session. He told me he had to quit that job before it became permanent.
What I'm getting at is, the people who call you on the phone are just sitting at their desk, doing their job like you are. Their boss is riding them hard to make sales, and he's right there in the next office over.
Sure it's a crappy job, and no one _has_ to do it. But in many cases it's these peoples best option, and shouting at them doesn't make them stop calling you.
Firstly, not every person who is annoyed by telemarketers is up to speed with this DNC list. They might not get around to it, or they might not even have heard of it...
Secondly, there's those who are just easy marks. They can't say no. If the DNC list allows these easily-pushed-around types to opt out before a smarmy salesperson corners them in their own living room, then this can only hurt those kinds of sales.
I've found responding with "I'm not interested at this time, thank you." and then hanging up the phone before they launch into their poorly rehearsed "but wait.. there's more" spiel, works quite well.
It's more polite than screaming at them and then sticking around listening to them continue with their useless natter, and gentler on ones own blood pressure as well. It's also more effective, since you don't end up wasting more time in the conversation than necessary. It's also easier on the poor schmuck on the other end of the line who barely makes a dime calling complete strangers. I couldn't stand that job, myself, and I don't see that yelling at them is going to help them find a better job, or make their current one any more pleasant. Remember - it's not the actual callers who are the scumbags, but the companies who employ them.
I'm sure that reading through someones work and picking the occaisional misspelling or mis-asignation is not what the grandparent poster was referring to.
I've read entire texts which consistently and constantly misuse these words (and "than/then" - which really annoys me, perhaps because the words aren't truly homophonous?). An entire text like this suggests the author is missing some basic instruction in the differences.
However, it may not be that the person fails to understand, but if so, it implies a lack of care. If someone doesn't care about what they write, why should the rest of us ?
But it reminds me of something.. when I graduated high school all the smartest people went into university to study the most prestigious or best paying careers (medicine or law for example).
Where did the kids who couldn't get into those courses go ?
But we won't ever be able to know everything because we were not there to witness the creation. We can only speculate and interpret the evidence we have. We are fallible and biased and could either interpret wrong on accident and arrive at a totally incorrect conclusion even though it may seem plausible or we may do it on purpose b/c we have an agenda
Exactly. That very assumption is built-in to the scientific method. Science is built around repeatability. If I ask a question and someone postulates an answer and I can't repeat the experiments that give them that answer, then the answer becomes suspect. Furthermore, many scientific thinkers (from Newton and onwards) have talked about the inherent errancy of our own senses. We rely on the evidence provided by them, and we must accept that whatever that experience is, it could be mistaken, or imperfect. This goes directly to the maxim "All Models are wrong, some models are useful". The only perfect representation of the Universe is the universe itself. This doesn't stop scientists from seeking useful models to help us to explain what's going on.
for example, look at Cold Fusion. There were some scientists in the late 80's who thought they'd cracked cold fusion. They published some findings, and several other scientists were drawn in, hoping that the worlds energy crisis was over. This is a good example of the problem - these people were incorrect but they had an agenda, a desire, a belief... But the Scientific method triumphed. The experiments were finally released to the scientific community and could not be duplicated. The theories fell down and were discredited.
When has Relgion so held itself to such scrutiny ? When has any religion discredited part of its doctrine because it fails to make sense in light of new evidence ?
Just b/c the eye is claimed by an imperfect person to be the perfect example of a perfect organ designed for its function does not mean anything. People can have their opinions on what the eye is. And just b/c there is a designer/creator does not imply we should be perfect. In fact, we are imperfect by design. Why do you think our bodies age and are capable of receiving damage? They are not perfect and they aren't meant to be.
Using this argument, how can you declare that God is perfect ? Perfect is either a word you understand or it isn't. If you understand the word perfect to mean something like "having no defect" then surely you will have to accept that the eye has a defect in its design, and therefore cannot be perfect. I'm not defining the "eye" as non-perfect because I'm imperfect, I'm simply thinking of a light perception device and can conceive of a better design than the eye. Since I, an imperfect being, can conceive of a better design, therefore the design of the eye cannot be perfect.
Assuming for a second that the Lord our God designed us in his image, then how can we not be perfect ? Furthermore, if we are not perfect, by Gods design, why not ? Why would God not design perfection into everything ? Is he a sadist?
Our bodies age and die because we evolved that way.
Since when does "can be" imply a "must"? Thus a designer is still possible.
Again, logic escapes you. Can be != must, that is true. But a possibility is unproven. You argue "complexity implies design implies designer" I counter with "complexity can arise out of simplicity through evolution.. ergo complexity does not imply design, therefore your case for designer is unproven."
Sure, a designer is still possible. I never said otherwise.
But how likely is it that this creator who made the whole wide universe cares so much about a bunch of primates on one tiny planet on the western spiral arm of the milky way galaxy amongst the thousands of galaxies in this tiny sector of the universe ? That's like saying you created the whole WORLD and yet really only care about one slide full of bacteria.
My arguments don't seem any better to you, because you don't appear to grasp logic.
You miss the point. The scientists ask questions, and will continue to do so. Deists claim to have answers, without asking any questions.
From a scientific perspective, it is more than likely that the question "what came before the universe?" is a nonsensical one if the theory that time didn't exist before the moment the universe came into being is accurate, and thus questions of "before" are undefined. Similarly since spatial relationships are relevant only in so far as this universe is concerned, "where" doesn't make much sense either.
To postulate that the beginning of the universe required the action of some external entity creates more questions than it answers. "Where did GOD come from?" is the simplest of them, and leading to "Well IF an external entity created the universe, how is it that *you* know that entity is an all good, all powerful dude who cares about humanity (specifically christians, and not jews, or hindus or kalahari bushmen)"
And I really appreciate the old appeal to fear argument. How can I go to hell if it doesn't exist ? In any case, if I am wrong and I do go to hell, I look forward to seeing you there, since I'm sure your "God is Love" guy doesn't want angry nasty people up in heaven with him... or are you an Old Testament "Revenge is Mine" kind of believer ? I have trouble telling which "God" in the bible any particular christian is talking about, He seems so inconsistent...
Excellent ! Another fallacious appeal to the Watchmaker argument.
Basically it goes like this: You walk along and you see a watch on the ground. Do you assume that this complex device with an obvious purpose and design just grew out of the ground or had a creator ?
Of course you have to say that this artifact was created, and then you point to the universe and say "look at this grand complexity beyond the ken of mortal man. How can such great design lack a creator?"
It's certainly merely a twist on the appeal to ignorance.. which basically says "You're an idiot, of course there's a God".
There are several counters to this argument. These are a couple I recall off the top of my head: 1/ Because we don't currently understand something, doesn't mean we cannot understand it, and furthermore, that those things momentarily beyond our comprehension MUST imply the existence of a creator. 2/ so-called complexity found in nature doesn't prove the hand of an intelligent designer. The eye is another example of this contention. It is claimed to be a perfect example of an organ perfectly designed for its function, thus proving the existance of a grand designer, yet there are several flaws that any competent designer would have eliminated, such as the blind spot. Also, there are examples of proto-eyes in nature supporting the concept of an evolution of the eye, rather than a designer. 3/ complex systems can be evolved out of simple ones in simulations. Thus the necessity of a designer is dispensed with.
Now, mind you, none of these arguments are proof that there *isn't* a designer. Nor do they claim to be. No one has ever *disproved* the existence of some sort of deity or creator, or what have you. However, to hold on to these simplistic arguments as *proof* of a deity's existence (especially that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good one as espoused by many Christian sects) just doesn't fly.
So umm, if God made that ball of matter, who made God ?
Oh, so God doesn't need a creator?
Why assume that the big ball of matter at the beginning of the universe needed one then ?
So you "know that to answer all those questions means knowing as much as God does and [you'll] never know that while on this planet"
So if we send you into space, you'll grow a clue ?
I'm sorry, but peddling this sort of blind opinion as some sort of universal logical truth is insulting. Your straw man arguments have been dealt with and discarded by philosophers throughout the ages. Go away, do some research, start thinking and come back with a novel approach to support your dogma and I will be impressed. Until then, keep your proselytization to yourself, it has little bearing on any discussion of science.
Although one might argue that the Catholic church kept literacy in the hands of the clergy rather than in the hands of the people (witness the stolid resistance to putting the catholic service into any language other than Latin as an example).
However, this is probably still one step better than "only in the hands of the 'nobility'", which holds dangers of its own.
Re:This subject already covered millions of times!
on
The Trouble with RFID
·
· Score: 1
Same deal with those "Club cards" shops give you for free to get cheaper stuff with. You fill out the form and get a free card and get discounts when you use it. Guess what - when you use it, the store knows what you bought when.
The difference is - it's voluntary. If you don't choose to subscribe to the system you pay a little more for your privacy. IF you don't choose to use the card when buying something with cash, you get to keep that purchase private.
RFID tags take that choice away from you, and that is the why they're a bad idea. Furthermore, tracking these things can reveal other information that is not inherent in the basic "person A bought item Z". For example, "person A bought item Z which was then found in the possession of person B who bought item Y with their own credit card."
Was item Z a gift to person B from A? Do we infer a relationship between the two? Or did person A sell item Z to B many months later after he was done with it ? Or was item Z stolen?
Imagine this sought of information in the hands, not merely of the authorities (who could subpoena it), but of corporations who owe no allegiance to anyone but their shareholders.
It only makes sense to count the number of files, even in the case you are making.
Copyright isn't concerned about volume of data. The copyright in one 3 meg song is the same as that in the Lord of the Rings movie. The size of the file has nothing to do with it.
Similarly if you illegally download a tiny low-bit-rate highly compressed version of a song, it's the same violation as if you download the lossless (larger) version.
Of course, one might try to argue that the highly-compressed version might be a derivative work depending on how distinguishable it is, but that's a real stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
All other considerations aside, that is a video, and therefore no guarantee whatsoever that he used the same mic that was used during recording.
And secondly, Shures are used for live work very often. They're just not as popular as condensers for vocals in the studio.
This already happens - IN YOUR STOMACH.
This is why they tell you not to mix your drinks.
The little beer nanites always seem to try and take over, and then those placid Scotch nanobots who were sittting there minding their own business stir up a revolution and pretty soon you've got one of them saying to the other "this stomach ain't big enough for the both of us.." and you know where that leads.
Actually Pabst Blue Ribbon is a key component of a concoction my friends created that they like to call "Hops, Skip, and Go Naked".
The secret is to use the absolute crappiest beer you can find. Stuff that's sort of alcoholic, but sort of not like beer. Pabst Blue Ribbon serves this purpose perfectly. They tried to make it with better beers, and it always turns out wrong.
Of course, like most alcoholic concoctions created by a bunch of drunken teenagers (as they were at the time, so the story goes), this one was made from whatever was at hand, mixed together in a bucket and imbibed until unconsciousness or debauchery ensued.
Of course, over the intervening years, they've refined the process somewhat, eliminating and substituting various ingredients to perfect this liquid love. I believe vodka and frozen lemonade concentrate are involved, but no matter how they tried to purge it from the recipe, Pabst Blue Ribbon remains to this day, that secret addition that inevitably provides the "Go Naked" part of the drink.
It's interesting that you cite the prevalence of firearms as a factor in determining whether to make them illegal (or certain types of them) and yet a similar situation with regards to drug use seems to make no difference to legislators waging their war on drugs.
As you point out - there are many factors involved in these decisionsm, and the Constitution is only one of them. Just don't leave out money.
And you conclusively know that this was caused by alcoholics then ?
Did they take money ? perhaps they're spend-a-holics ? What about jewelry? maybe they were women?
Sheesh.
I don't think you understand the premise either.
Economics takes into account all those other factors or it becomes irrelevant. To say "just the economic" is to miss the point of economics entirely.
And of course then there are all those alcoholics who break in to your house so that they can steal your alcohol..
Oh wait...
Well I consider myself fortunate that I get only about 3 calls every day or so (not counting however many I get when I'm not at home to answer them).
Perhaps I painted with too broad a brush. There are certainly those for whom telemarketing is exactly the type of job they are most suited. These are definitely those who take advantage of Alzheimers sufferers and other slimy practices. You'll find them selling used cars as well.
But I'd say, from my limited experience in the matter, that the majority of my contact is with those who stammer my name and stagger through their rote-learned spiel.
I pity these people.
That doesn't mean I stick around listening to them prattle on.
I'm certainly not Ghandi, or blessed with any special patience. I just don't see why I should bother wasting my breath and anger on them. I've known several people who have been involved with hard-sell lines of work. One was door-to-door, selling those little discount cards, the ones where the pitch is "$200 worth of value for only $25". He was the most laid back guy in the world and was just looking for some cash so he could make next months rent. He told me how the lead sales people would get everyone together in the morning and whip them into this frenzy like a coach gives a pep talk to a team. It was insane how well it worked. He was overtaken with selling zeal for several hours after each session. He told me he had to quit that job before it became permanent.
What I'm getting at is, the people who call you on the phone are just sitting at their desk, doing their job like you are. Their boss is riding them hard to make sales, and he's right there in the next office over.
Sure it's a crappy job, and no one _has_ to do it. But in many cases it's these peoples best option, and shouting at them doesn't make them stop calling you.
Firstly, not every person who is annoyed by telemarketers is up to speed with this DNC list. They might not get around to it, or they might not even have heard of it...
Secondly, there's those who are just easy marks. They can't say no. If the DNC list allows these easily-pushed-around types to opt out before a smarmy salesperson corners them in their own living room, then this can only hurt those kinds of sales.
I've found responding with "I'm not interested at this time, thank you." and then hanging up the phone before they launch into their poorly rehearsed "but wait.. there's more" spiel, works quite well.
It's more polite than screaming at them and then sticking around listening to them continue with their useless natter, and gentler on ones own blood pressure as well.
It's also more effective, since you don't end up wasting more time in the conversation than necessary.
It's also easier on the poor schmuck on the other end of the line who barely makes a dime calling complete strangers. I couldn't stand that job, myself, and I don't see that yelling at them is going to help them find a better job, or make their current one any more pleasant. Remember - it's not the actual callers who are the scumbags, but the companies who employ them.
But that's just me.
Sorry, I meant my grandfather and I make our pr0n together.. wait. Did I just say that out loud ?
My gf and I just watch the pr0n together.
I'm sure that reading through someones work and picking the occaisional misspelling or mis-asignation is not what the grandparent poster was referring to.
I've read entire texts which consistently and constantly misuse these words (and "than/then" - which really annoys me, perhaps because the words aren't truly homophonous?). An entire text like this suggests the author is missing some basic instruction in the differences.
However, it may not be that the person fails to understand, but if so, it implies a lack of care. If someone doesn't care about what they write, why should the rest of us ?
Reading all these replies makes me very sad...
But it reminds me of something.. when I graduated high school all the smartest people went into university to study the most prestigious or best paying careers (medicine or law for example).
Where did the kids who couldn't get into those courses go ?
Teachers College.
But we won't ever be able to know everything because we were not there to witness the creation. We can only speculate and interpret the evidence we have. We are fallible and biased and could either interpret wrong on accident and arrive at a totally incorrect conclusion even though it may seem plausible or we may do it on purpose b/c we have an agenda
Exactly. That very assumption is built-in to the scientific method. Science is built around repeatability. If I ask a question and someone postulates an answer and I can't repeat the experiments that give them that answer, then the answer becomes suspect.
Furthermore, many scientific thinkers (from Newton and onwards) have talked about the inherent errancy of our own senses. We rely on the evidence provided by them, and we must accept that whatever that experience is, it could be mistaken, or imperfect. This goes directly to the maxim "All Models are wrong, some models are useful". The only perfect representation of the Universe is the universe itself. This doesn't stop scientists from seeking useful models to help us to explain what's going on.
for example, look at Cold Fusion. There were some scientists in the late 80's who thought they'd cracked cold fusion. They published some findings, and several other scientists were drawn in, hoping that the worlds energy crisis was over. This is a good example of the problem - these people were incorrect but they had an agenda, a desire, a belief...
But the Scientific method triumphed. The experiments were finally released to the scientific community and could not be duplicated. The theories fell down and were discredited.
When has Relgion so held itself to such scrutiny ? When has any religion discredited part of its doctrine because it fails to make sense in light of new evidence ?
Just b/c the eye is claimed by an imperfect person to be the perfect example of a perfect organ designed for its function does not mean anything. People can have their opinions on what the eye is. And just b/c there is a designer/creator does not imply we should be perfect. In fact, we are imperfect by design. Why do you think our bodies age and are capable of receiving damage? They are not perfect and they aren't meant to be.
Using this argument, how can you declare that God is perfect ? Perfect is either a word you understand or it isn't. If you understand the word perfect to mean something like "having no defect" then surely you will have to accept that the eye has a defect in its design, and therefore cannot be perfect. I'm not defining the "eye" as non-perfect because I'm imperfect, I'm simply thinking of a light perception device and can conceive of a better design than the eye. Since I, an imperfect being, can conceive of a better design, therefore the design of the eye cannot be perfect.
Assuming for a second that the Lord our God designed us in his image, then how can we not be perfect ? Furthermore, if we are not perfect, by Gods design, why not ? Why would God not design perfection into everything ? Is he a sadist?
Our bodies age and die because we evolved that way.
Since when does "can be" imply a "must"? Thus a designer is still possible.
Again, logic escapes you. Can be != must, that is true. But a possibility is unproven. You argue "complexity implies design implies designer"
I counter with
"complexity can arise out of simplicity through evolution.. ergo complexity does not imply design, therefore your case for designer is unproven."
Sure, a designer is still possible.
I never said otherwise.
But how likely is it that this creator who made the whole wide universe cares so much about a bunch of primates on one tiny planet on the western spiral arm of the milky way galaxy amongst the thousands of galaxies in this tiny sector of the universe ?
That's like saying you created the whole WORLD and yet really only care about one slide full of bacteria.
My arguments don't seem any better to you, because you don't appear to grasp logic.
You miss the point.
...
The scientists ask questions, and will continue to do so. Deists claim to have answers, without asking any questions.
From a scientific perspective, it is more than likely that the question "what came before the universe?" is a nonsensical one if the theory that time didn't exist before the moment the universe came into being is accurate, and thus questions of "before" are undefined. Similarly since spatial relationships are relevant only in so far as this universe is concerned, "where" doesn't make much sense either.
To postulate that the beginning of the universe required the action of some external entity creates more questions than it answers. "Where did GOD come from?" is the simplest of them, and leading to "Well IF an external entity created the universe, how is it that *you* know that entity is an all good, all powerful dude who cares about humanity (specifically christians, and not jews, or hindus or kalahari bushmen)"
And I really appreciate the old appeal to fear argument. How can I go to hell if it doesn't exist ? In any case, if I am wrong and I do go to hell, I look forward to seeing you there, since I'm sure your "God is Love" guy doesn't want angry nasty people up in heaven with him... or are you an Old Testament "Revenge is Mine" kind of believer ? I have trouble telling which "God" in the bible any particular christian is talking about, He seems so inconsistent
Excellent !
:
:
Another fallacious appeal to the Watchmaker argument.
Basically it goes like this
You walk along and you see a watch on the ground. Do you assume that this complex device with an obvious purpose and design just grew out of the ground or had a creator ?
Of course you have to say that this artifact was created, and then you point to the universe and say "look at this grand complexity beyond the ken of mortal man. How can such great design lack a creator?"
It's certainly merely a twist on the appeal to ignorance.. which basically says "You're an idiot, of course there's a God".
There are several counters to this argument. These are a couple I recall off the top of my head
1/ Because we don't currently understand something, doesn't mean we cannot understand it, and furthermore, that those things momentarily beyond our comprehension MUST imply the existence of a creator.
2/ so-called complexity found in nature doesn't prove the hand of an intelligent designer. The eye is another example of this contention. It is claimed to be a perfect example of an organ perfectly designed for its function, thus proving the existance of a grand designer, yet there are several flaws that any competent designer would have eliminated, such as the blind spot. Also, there are examples of proto-eyes in nature supporting the concept of an evolution of the eye, rather than a designer.
3/ complex systems can be evolved out of simple ones in simulations. Thus the necessity of a designer is dispensed with.
Now, mind you, none of these arguments are proof that there *isn't* a designer. Nor do they claim to be. No one has ever *disproved* the existence of some sort of deity or creator, or what have you.
However, to hold on to these simplistic arguments as *proof* of a deity's existence (especially that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good one as espoused by many Christian sects) just doesn't fly.
Damn, and I hate being trolled.
Ahh - the first cause problem.
So umm, if God made that ball of matter, who made God ?
Oh, so God doesn't need a creator?
Why assume that the big ball of matter at the beginning of the universe needed one then ?
So you "know that to answer all those questions means knowing as much as God does and [you'll] never know that while on this planet"
So if we send you into space, you'll grow a clue ?
I'm sorry, but peddling this sort of blind opinion as some sort of universal logical truth is insulting. Your straw man arguments have been dealt with and discarded by philosophers throughout the ages. Go away, do some research, start thinking and come back with a novel approach to support your dogma and I will be impressed.
Until then, keep your proselytization to yourself, it has little bearing on any discussion of science.
Although one might argue that the Catholic church kept literacy in the hands of the clergy rather than in the hands of the people (witness the stolid resistance to putting the catholic service into any language other than Latin as an example).
However, this is probably still one step better than "only in the hands of the 'nobility'", which holds dangers of its own.
Same deal with those "Club cards" shops give you for free to get cheaper stuff with. You fill out the form and get a free card and get discounts when you use it.
Guess what - when you use it, the store knows what you bought when.
The difference is - it's voluntary. If you don't choose to subscribe to the system you pay a little more for your privacy. IF you don't choose to use the card when buying something with cash, you get to keep that purchase private.
RFID tags take that choice away from you, and that is the why they're a bad idea.
Furthermore, tracking these things can reveal other information that is not inherent in the basic "person A bought item Z".
For example, "person A bought item Z which was then found in the possession of person B who bought item Y with their own credit card."
Was item Z a gift to person B from A? Do we infer a relationship between the two? Or did person A sell item Z to B many months later after he was done with it ? Or was item Z stolen?
Imagine this sought of information in the hands, not merely of the authorities (who could subpoena it), but of corporations who owe no allegiance to anyone but their shareholders.
It only makes sense to count the number of files, even in the case you are making.
Copyright isn't concerned about volume of data. The copyright in one 3 meg song is the same as that in the Lord of the Rings movie. The size of the file has nothing to do with it.
Similarly if you illegally download a tiny low-bit-rate highly compressed version of a song, it's the same violation as if you download the lossless (larger) version.
Of course, one might try to argue that the highly-compressed version might be a derivative work depending on how distinguishable it is, but that's a real stretch.
Which is why ants really do rule the planet and we're they're unwitting dupes.
I for one..
wait! aren't *humans* the overlords ?
Go into politics.
Seriously. If running for office doesn't do it for you, write scripts for those who do.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
- Ben Franklin
as is "cock-gobbler", and "fuck-knuckle".
I think one of the more obtuse I've heard has to be "Monkey-juggler" but no one seems to get it.
And here's another definition just for you.