depends on the relative scale. Sooner or later photons would become larger than the individual receptor... but that's why they invented electron microscopes.
This would neglect the fact that modern economics is based on the existence of scarcity, and scarcity is not based on the existence of the economy.
There is no logical need, reason, or purpose behind generating artificial scarcity. Many intellectual 'property' disputes raise barriers to productivity when they wouldn't previously have existed. If someone had patented the wheel then either patent law would have died then and there, or the course of history would have radically shifted.
There is no point to artifical scarcity except to further contrive the rules of economics, in what amounts to a fragile house of cards. Sooner or later reality will set in, and these idiotic beliefs will collapse. The question is, should we be dependant on these beliefs when that happens?
so they're used to it to the point where it's been justified in their minds so that they don't feel guilty
... you should know as well as anyone that laws are based on what is appropriate for society, not what is appropriate for any individual.
Yes, Orrin Hatch is correct, there are new "Market Realities"... ones which have effectively proven the RIAA obsolete. People like you who would prefer to drag society back into the dark ages, and reinstitute economic scarcity when it doesn't actually exist, are no different from the same pious conservatives who assaulted the invention of the printing press.
My parents were never nosy. They casually asked me questions and if I didn't want to talk about it they didn't force it out of me. By demanding answers you just shut communication down altogether, and you'll have a harder time getting the truth later on.
Just because you aren't enforcing your authority with an iron fist doesn't mean you're letting them "slip under the influence" of satan, peer pressure, the RIAA, etc. etc.
I hate to sound like a f-ing idealist but kids don't learn to be responsible by being bossed around. They mostly learn by sensible advice, and by example. I'm in college now, but I don't waste my life getting drunk because my parents never drank, not because they filled my brain with rubbish about how it's bad for me. I know what's bad for me, and so do most kids. It's simply a matter of giving them reasons to care.
I've been using the internet since I was 12 and my parents didn't usually worry about what I was doing, much beyond my tying up the phone all the time. In fact, they bought me a second phone line just to avoid the inconvenience. Here I am 19, still alive, not arrested, and on my way to grad school.
A kid can get hit by a car crossing the street a lot easier than they can fall prey to internet predators, or anything else inherently 'evil' about the internet. You wouldn't neglect to tell your kids to look both ways, nor should you neglect to inform them about the dangers of the internet. However, I don't know of many 12-year-olds who won't cross the road using "My mommy told me not to" as an excuse.
Whether or not you think restricting usage of the internet is worthwhile, anything beyond simple advice wouldn't work anyway. It's human nature to violate rules which don't legitimately make any sense, and a lot of the reigning internet filters, expert advice, and parenting "dos and don'ts" about the internet are just hogwash.
Your kids probably aren't doing anything more stupid than you would have done, for better or worse, and you can't expect to change that. Teach them to be more intelligent, rather than more rebellious. Or is that too radical a concept?
"The Elegant Universe" is about string theory, sure... but rather than being as accurate and descriptive as possible, they opt to squander three hours on needless (and logically irrelevant) special effects. It also sports a repetitious narrative that explains nothing in detail, but always seems excited about everything.
I've seen Bill Nye specials that are more keen on science than this piece of junk... I expected to see it on Fox.
The US couldn't go back to the moon if they wanted to. They wouldn't be able to use the old Apollo technology, they'd have to start from scratch.
As far as I'm concerned the Chinese are at the same level now. Everyone's whining about how we've already been to the moon, but blame NASA for not going anywhere beyond that. It's their damn fault.
... and then sue the pants of the Chinese for applying the rational thinking that apparently the United States invented. I think it would work out swell.
The future, my friends, is in the WiFi of the power supply world; Tesla Coils!
That's right, tell your stock broker to start investing in the human sized bug zapper market asap!
*bzzrt*
I dunno, I think fish are pretty hawt. Most are so passive in nature that billions die by simply following the flow of the ocean into the very climate that can kill them. People entertain me for the same reason.
Blub blub!
...I'm sort of depressed. It's 10:30 now and CNN still hasn't gotten its act together. Neither has NBC or Fox. I walked around the halls of my dorm and they were noticibly inactive. Everyone is watching the Cubs game.
...I'm sort of depressed. It's 10:30 now and CNN still hasn't gotten its act together. Neither has NBC or Fox. I walked around the halls of my dorm and they were noticibly inactive. Everyone is watching the Cubs game.
...but I also read the original report on the problem, and the person who authored it seemed to believe that it was more than a simple bug.
At this point, not being an expert, I'd reserve judgment... but I don't think we should completely dismiss the possibility that it was just sloppy programming.
...sooner or later hollywood will not only have to compete with pirates, but also with legitimate work released by individual parties. As has been said in the past, by both the RIAA and the MPAA, is that you cannot compete with 'free'. The exact same attempts to corner the market will be made against all forms of competition, even those which aren't illegal.
I tend to agree with you; many modern protests are frivilous. That does not mean the concept could never be rationally applied. Protests during the civil rights movement, for example, proved reasonably sound. Should everyone who felt mistreated have packed up and moved to another country?
Slashdot Mirror
...and many former investors/employees are now dirt poor.
depends on the relative scale. Sooner or later photons would become larger than the individual receptor... but that's why they invented electron microscopes.
There is no logical need, reason, or purpose behind generating artificial scarcity. Many intellectual 'property' disputes raise barriers to productivity when they wouldn't previously have existed. If someone had patented the wheel then either patent law would have died then and there, or the course of history would have radically shifted.
There is no point to artifical scarcity except to further contrive the rules of economics, in what amounts to a fragile house of cards. Sooner or later reality will set in, and these idiotic beliefs will collapse. The question is, should we be dependant on these beliefs when that happens?
No. Although I'm kind of depressed. Patented AI... whee! That'd be nightmare prediction number #237 to come true since 1998.
Yes, Orrin Hatch is correct, there are new "Market Realities"... ones which have effectively proven the RIAA obsolete. People like you who would prefer to drag society back into the dark ages, and reinstitute economic scarcity when it doesn't actually exist, are no different from the same pious conservatives who assaulted the invention of the printing press.
Not all information deserves to be free. Why? Because there would be no incentive to produce it? ...
Yes of course. ... ...
Just because you aren't enforcing your authority with an iron fist doesn't mean you're letting them "slip under the influence" of satan, peer pressure, the RIAA, etc. etc.
I hate to sound like a f-ing idealist but kids don't learn to be responsible by being bossed around. They mostly learn by sensible advice, and by example. I'm in college now, but I don't waste my life getting drunk because my parents never drank, not because they filled my brain with rubbish about how it's bad for me. I know what's bad for me, and so do most kids. It's simply a matter of giving them reasons to care.
A kid can get hit by a car crossing the street a lot easier than they can fall prey to internet predators, or anything else inherently 'evil' about the internet. You wouldn't neglect to tell your kids to look both ways, nor should you neglect to inform them about the dangers of the internet. However, I don't know of many 12-year-olds who won't cross the road using "My mommy told me not to" as an excuse.
Whether or not you think restricting usage of the internet is worthwhile, anything beyond simple advice wouldn't work anyway. It's human nature to violate rules which don't legitimately make any sense, and a lot of the reigning internet filters, expert advice, and parenting "dos and don'ts" about the internet are just hogwash.
Your kids probably aren't doing anything more stupid than you would have done, for better or worse, and you can't expect to change that. Teach them to be more intelligent, rather than more rebellious. Or is that too radical a concept?
I've seen Bill Nye specials that are more keen on science than this piece of junk... I expected to see it on Fox.
Why bother to do anything really? I mean if you just kill yourself it will all be over with quickly... save quite a lot of resources too.
As far as I'm concerned the Chinese are at the same level now. Everyone's whining about how we've already been to the moon, but blame NASA for not going anywhere beyond that. It's their damn fault.
... and then sue the pants of the Chinese for applying the rational thinking that apparently the United States invented. I think it would work out swell.
... you think too highly of the /. community if you expect them to think before opening their mouth
The future, my friends, is in the WiFi of the power supply world; Tesla Coils! That's right, tell your stock broker to start investing in the human sized bug zapper market asap! *bzzrt*
I dunno, I think fish are pretty hawt. Most are so passive in nature that billions die by simply following the flow of the ocean into the very climate that can kill them. People entertain me for the same reason. Blub blub!
On an unrelated note, someone fix the /. servers.
...I'm sort of depressed. It's 10:30 now and CNN still hasn't gotten its act together. Neither has NBC or Fox. I walked around the halls of my dorm and they were noticibly inactive. Everyone is watching the Cubs game.
There's more than one way to fux0r 4 $mu|2f
The aura of idiocy that surrounds NASA is the single, most compelling argument to become a capitalist.
At this point, not being an expert, I'd reserve judgment... but I don't think we should completely dismiss the possibility that it was just sloppy programming.
I'm not just pissed, but now I'm scared...
So now when I'm taking my 3rd college level introductory programming course in a row, I can go online and actually learn something for once!
Oh yes, more media coverage which they can spin in their favor. The best protection that p2p ever had was when stupid people didn't know about it.
I tend to agree with you; many modern protests are frivilous. That does not mean the concept could never be rationally applied. Protests during the civil rights movement, for example, proved reasonably sound. Should everyone who felt mistreated have packed up and moved to another country?
Some people would argue a bullet to the forehead has the same effect... does that make protests in real life any less legitimate?