the surprise is that people are willing to put up with massive restrictions on the use of downloaded files, not to mention their willingness to have their purchases tracked in a fashion impossible in the bricks and mortar / cash world.
a) the article states that cheaper versions from china might harm the reputation of the material. this implies that the chinese version is inferior.
b) the market will certainly determine the quality. the quality the market demands will be the quality supplied; price will be in part a function of this.
c) i am not confused. as posted above, a material is a discovery. it cannot be pirated. i agree that this is not an argument but rather an axiom. i, however, am prepared to defend it.
according to this site, 80 percent of american votes are cast by machines built by one of two corporations (Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- both described as 'Republican'). Although this concentation does not directly preclude democracy, it does certainly make it rather vulnerable.
But if scientists from China discover how to manufacture Terfenol -- Etrema's Snodgrass says that three Chinese companies have already started making pirated versions -- the metal's still-fragile reputation could be harmed by the cheaper, imported version.
if china has the metals and the formula, why would their 'pirate' version be inferior to the american version, beyond its not being american? wouldn't market demand dictate the quality of the chinese ternenol? and surely pirated is the wrong word here. they are not bootlegging consumer goods, but manufacturing a material. unless, that is, they use it to make mickey mouse dolls and rolex watches.
I hope this is not too OT, but here is the sound of a pulsar,
xi Hydrae (eos.org; realaudio), as captured by a team from my university (KULeuven). The link comes from this page (eso.org).
There is certainly a larger problem here -- the very mechanisms by which we were to be freed from the ravages of nature (esp. sewage, refrigeration, washing-machines, elevators...) have enslaved us to convenience through a kind of hypnotization. We now must have convenience, for if we don't, we can't do anything. Think about what happens when the power goes out: our sleep-walk through existence is rudely disturbed, much like when a magician's victims find out that they have been barking like dogs. This is a much worse bondage.
You have not given an argument for why you think it is a good idea that something I own can then spy on me, why the existence of this device should be hidden from me, and why it should be illegal for me to remove or tamper with it.
Moreover, you have not argued in any way why this is actually a rather good idea, nor specified what "this" is -- is it the box, or its admission as evidence, or something else?
Further, you tread rather dangerously close to what I call the technicalist fallacy, which is the belief that technology will solve the problems of human behaviour. The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal. This fallacy is constantly invoke to intrude on daily life. And the more we crave our convenience, the more it will take away our privacy. And don't tell me the roads are not private, for this is not the issue. The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
cheers, potor (like you, I do not own a car, and nor do I ever plan to buy one.)
The brochure tells us that 3/4 of the earth's surface is under water, and invites us to explore the unexplored, but the machine operates at a depth of 50m. Hmmm, someone should get the PR dept. and the engineers on the same page...
beware doesn't work because too many surfers have no idea of what clicking through gator does, esp. because gator is so sneaky. people need to become aware, and gator's methods block this awareness as much as possible.
iow, users must beware adware, but be aware of spyware. hence, the distinction between adware and spyware is valid, for each calls for different levels of mindfulness.
i don't think the poster is missing the point: he is simply asking about the economics of distributed computing, which is a legitimate question. for, when you donate money, your knowledge of the personal cost does not preclude the donation.
cheers, potor
come on, every 6th grader needs a laptop so that they can be tied in to brand- and os-loyalty. it has nothing to do with learning, or programming, or god forbid, grammar and writing.
cheers, potor
From the sound of things, I am glad I did. But I wanted it cuz my university is blocking p2p clients on a program-by-program basis, and I was hoping they had not yet heard of ES5.
The list does not ban charities and political fundraising, but only commerical calling. The hard sell of charities and polital fundraising is, to my mind, more annoying than any commercial solicitation.
. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most, but not all, telemarketing calls. You may still receive calls from political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, the business of insurance (to the extent that it is regulated by state law), or companies with which you have an existing business relationship.
where do get this theory from? this is what i read:
"If this has affected the way in which third parties interact with our service, it is merely a byproduct of our efforts to implement preventative measures to protect our users from potential spammers," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said.
Trillian claims to be working on a solution, but I see no evidence in this article that Yahoo is.
You and those who modded you up as insightful are insane. Judges are paid not to take into account general opinion, but rather to judge a case on its merits. And the rhetorical assertion about his confidence in his decision is most gratuitous -- would you rather he not think himself to be correct? Or rather, has your analysis of the case proven him to be incorrect, or is your mind one with the 50 million, as your parenthetical closing implies?
Slashdot Mirror
oops, forgot to remove the bonus on my last post ... sorry for shouting.
cheers, potor
i'm guessing that this is a troll
the surprise is that people are willing to put up with massive restrictions on the use of downloaded files, not to mention their willingness to have their purchases tracked in a fashion impossible in the bricks and mortar / cash world.
b) the market will certainly determine the quality. the quality the market demands will be the quality supplied; price will be in part a function of this.
c) i am not confused. as posted above, a material is a discovery. it cannot be pirated. i agree that this is not an argument but rather an axiom. i, however, am prepared to defend it.
cheers, potor
according to this site, 80 percent of american votes are cast by machines built by one of two corporations (Election Systems and Software (ES&S) and Diebold Voting Systems -- both described as 'Republican'). Although this concentation does not directly preclude democracy, it does certainly make it rather vulnerable.
Enjoy some truly cosmic drum 'n bass!
There is certainly a larger problem here -- the very mechanisms by which we were to be freed from the ravages of nature (esp. sewage, refrigeration, washing-machines, elevators ...) have enslaved us to convenience through a kind of hypnotization. We now must have convenience, for if we don't, we can't do anything. Think about what happens when the power goes out: our sleep-walk through existence is rudely disturbed, much like when a magician's victims find out that they have been barking like dogs. This is a much worse bondage.
Moreover, you have not argued in any way why this is actually a rather good idea, nor specified what "this" is -- is it the box, or its admission as evidence, or something else?
Further, you tread rather dangerously close to what I call the technicalist fallacy, which is the belief that technology will solve the problems of human behaviour. The box will not stop speeding, but rather increase the amount of information the police have at their disposal. This fallacy is constantly invoke to intrude on daily life. And the more we crave our convenience, the more it will take away our privacy. And don't tell me the roads are not private, for this is not the issue. The issue is making any given citizen culpable for every minute of his/her life.
cheers, potor (like you, I do not own a car, and nor do I ever plan to buy one.)
cheers, potor
re: belgium, good guess! also, it is not my mother tongue, so its correctness is actually a random occurance
ik wens u met uw overwinning in Australie geluk.
iow, users must beware adware, but be aware of spyware. hence, the distinction between adware and spyware is valid, for each calls for different levels of mindfulness.
cheers, potor
i don't think the poster is missing the point: he is simply asking about the economics of distributed computing, which is a legitimate question. for, when you donate money, your knowledge of the personal cost does not preclude the donation. cheers, potor
guilty as charged, sir.
the eolas debacle will be a good opprotunity for MS to force everyone to upgrade their browsers, and with that, their OS ...
come on, every 6th grader needs a laptop so that they can be tied in to brand- and os-loyalty. it has nothing to do with learning, or programming, or god forbid, grammar and writing. cheers, potor
what are the terms of the massachusetts list?
.
I couldn't get it to work ... so I removed it.
From the sound of things, I am glad I did. But I wanted it cuz my university is blocking p2p clients on a program-by-program basis, and I was hoping they had not yet heard of ES5.
.
music is noise that is not heard as noise, noise that transcends its sound and has meaning that escapes any use function.
with paper like that.
You and those who modded you up as insightful are insane. Judges are paid not to take into account general opinion, but rather to judge a case on its merits. And the rhetorical assertion about his confidence in his decision is most gratuitous -- would you rather he not think himself to be correct? Or rather, has your analysis of the case proven him to be incorrect, or is your mind one with the 50 million, as your parenthetical closing implies?
How did they get the technology to split the nut?