I'll explain it, moron. The artist was getting money. DaVinci was hired. Michelangelo was hired. Rubens, Rembrant........ were hired. That means, chum, they were getting money because what they "did from the heart" was good enough for someone to make a contract (we have the originals in many cases) and pay them to sit around in court and paint. I assume that's what you want, rich folk having exclusive possession of artistic output?
Ever notice why there are precious few paintings that were originally given by the artist to the commoner. Money.
Your 2nd last paragraph shows you don't even understand copyright. And, beyond that, devolves into a bunch of what ifs that aren't real. Elves and dwarves are concepts, ideas, not text. You cannot copyright an idea, though some try. And, moron, there are patented mice. Guess what? They have not a thing to do with copyright. Nothing. Patent!=copyright.
Yes, I write and sell my writing.
Re:Piracy is marker of immature market
on
Piracy Economics
·
· Score: 1
I've been in IT since '72 and that's pretty much the way an intelligent designer makes things. Always has been. The reason it's a big deal is so many of the IT population are not good designers and XP or cowboy their way into a mess.
Maybe not the original act, but those videos are exploitive of their victims for the duration of their existence in being available for the decrepit tastes of pedophiles.
There is no "we" in this, chum. They do that to children. You can't foist the action on someone a half world away who is unaware of the problem. Even your link puts the numbers at one child per 40 "small farms". How does someone in the US tell which it came from. We should indeed put the Ivory Coast on notice and jamb decency on them as best we can, but you'd starve 39 of each 40 because of one?
Your assertion is also a non sequitor. Just because big problems exist does not obviate the need to deal with other big problems. No, I'm not "offended" by either child slavery or child rape. I'm enraged by both.
Oh, is that all you need? Well, this cluster of neurons over here fired in sync, which caused a cascade effect, which precipitated the choice. Better? Or do you now require the why of the neural firing? Then, once that is known, the why of that?
complex & multilayered determinism You mean an available range of choices, one of which is chosen?
That your *mind* - not simply neurons in your brain - can somehow reach out and touch the material world; that's free will. And there's absolutely no evidence it exists.
There's no evidence that the *mind* exists other than as the neurons in your brain. Strange mix of empirical evidence required for your supernatural assumptions.
AT BEST "free will" means nothing, in all other cases it means less.
No, at best it means you are more complex than an automaton, in all other cases it means the same.
"As if somehow your thought..."
If you need to paint free will as being "magical" to argue effectively against it, you ain't got it yet. A machine which slaps the table when a light goes on will do so until it breaks. You (I would hope) will get bored, exercise free will, and quit the game despite the urging to continue. Or maybe you will think ahead, see how boring it would be, and not participate to begin with. Free will.
If you're arguing that because your brain is making your decisions you don't have free will, you're already arguing from a point of supernaturalism.
Unless you're going to interject some supernatural force -- always assumed on faith, never evidence -- then, yes, physics can explain things. But, there is a huge leap from understanding physices (what is understood) and presuming that a comprehensive model can be developed of a system with tetra volumes of information.
People often mistake that volume as the supernatural. Any presumption of something superior is just god of the gaps, of which the whole solipsism thing is just a godless version.
Solipsism is a cannard which can be exposed by simply asking why a solipsist needs to ask others how they can prove they exist. Or that you need a language (and need to speak/write it proficiently enough to be understood) begs the idea that everything is brain container contents. No, the physical world is real.
There is just as significant a leap of logic and faith to presume that because you cannot directly experience the thoughts of others (you can directly experience the world, that's what nerves are all about) that none save yourself actually exist.
Here's an experiment you can do to prove beyond a shadow that the world exists. Take yourself, a chair, a hammer and a not-so-good friend; sit with your eyes closed imagining a benign world as your not-so munches the back of your skull with said hammer. You will no longer argue the idea that the world is simply some mental construct of yours. Easy.
Lindzen - 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
"Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Yes,yes. Our ancestors didn't know as much as we and we not as much as our progeny will. The world as it has and will be.
Yet despite the gloomy prose, it is a better place now than then. I certainly wouldn't want to live a hundred years ago, what with hardly any refrigeration, biomedicine, etc. And, it will be a better place in the future.
"Entropy is always increasing, and nature will have her way."
Meaningless. Entropy is physics, not social or biological.
"...and we approach the process to create a more holistic child, and not just to further the Aryan state."
You're worried that much about neo-Nazis? Don't be. Oh, I think you mean we'll try to eliminate genetic abnormalities and try to make the kids physically and mentally better. That would be bad why?
Um, no. Not even close. Those areas are so vague (temporal, visual, general logic, etc) that you cannot tell even what topic, much less what thoughts are going on.
MRI is easier and far less intrusive, but still no.
Just a point. Leeches are used because they're the best thing available. They have their own pharmaceutical lab with them and exercise extreme precision in their technique. They didn't used to be used here (US) and then made a comeback.
Wow! What the hell were you doing/where were you going that you got so much? I look at tits and ass online and still only get some 10-20 a day on a heavy day. Wow.
Yes, this can happen in print. In the real world, people who persue democracy are hardly willing to be told all of their work belong to gov and so would either not impliment actual communism or quickly dissassemble it.
That would be getting arrested for disobeying a court order. Don't conflate, the context was getting arrested for a simple link (like, out of the blue), not for links explicitely cited by court.
Wasn't there an article just in the last week or so about the inability of people to get their enhancements and features added? You will never find CS adopting the idea of people adding and modifying willy-nilly. Specifically, what attributes of OS do you see CS adopting?
Follow the links, the pic is there. The school is absolutely in the wrong.
The university system in the US is attempting to become morals police. Unfortunately, they're hypocrits, as they use suppressive 'morals' in their attempt to squash out anything they feel inferior. Look at the recent introduction of community service as a course requirement.
What a bunch of crap. Google has no 'right' to distribute whatever the hell . If I have a copyrighted material I don't want distributed by Google and their users want it, too bad. I own the friggin' right to decide distribution, not you, not Google. They are definitely not on the right side.
Slashdot Mirror
Fossil fuels until nuke facilities are built and can supply the energy.
I'll explain it, moron. The artist was getting money. DaVinci was hired. Michelangelo was hired. Rubens, Rembrant........ were hired. That means, chum, they were getting money because what they "did from the heart" was good enough for someone to make a contract (we have the originals in many cases) and pay them to sit around in court and paint. I assume that's what you want, rich folk having exclusive possession of artistic output?
Ever notice why there are precious few paintings that were originally given by the artist to the commoner. Money.
Your 2nd last paragraph shows you don't even understand copyright. And, beyond that, devolves into a bunch of what ifs that aren't real. Elves and dwarves are concepts, ideas, not text. You cannot copyright an idea, though some try. And, moron, there are patented mice. Guess what? They have not a thing to do with copyright. Nothing. Patent!=copyright.
Yes, I write and sell my writing.
Easy to say, harder to cite.
I've been in IT since '72 and that's pretty much the way an intelligent designer makes things. Always has been. The reason it's a big deal is so many of the IT population are not good designers and XP or cowboy their way into a mess.
And, as The Dixie Chicks found out, the public is free to respond as they see fit.
Maybe not the original act, but those videos are exploitive of their victims for the duration of their existence in being available for the decrepit tastes of pedophiles.
There is no "we" in this, chum. They do that to children. You can't foist the action on someone a half world away who is unaware of the problem. Even your link puts the numbers at one child per 40 "small farms". How does someone in the US tell which it came from. We should indeed put the Ivory Coast on notice and jamb decency on them as best we can, but you'd starve 39 of each 40 because of one?
Your assertion is also a non sequitor. Just because big problems exist does not obviate the need to deal with other big problems. No, I'm not "offended" by either child slavery or child rape. I'm enraged by both.
Oh, is that all you need? Well, this cluster of neurons over here fired in sync, which caused a cascade effect, which precipitated the choice. Better? Or do you now require the why of the neural firing? Then, once that is known, the why of that?
complex & multilayered determinism You mean an available range of choices, one of which is chosen?
That your *mind* - not simply neurons in your brain - can somehow reach out and touch the material world; that's free will. And there's absolutely no evidence it exists.
There's no evidence that the *mind* exists other than as the neurons in your brain. Strange mix of empirical evidence required for your supernatural assumptions.
AT BEST "free will" means nothing, in all other cases it means less.
No, at best it means you are more complex than an automaton, in all other cases it means the same.
"As if somehow your thought..."
If you need to paint free will as being "magical" to argue effectively against it, you ain't got it yet. A machine which slaps the table when a light goes on will do so until it breaks. You (I would hope) will get bored, exercise free will, and quit the game despite the urging to continue. Or maybe you will think ahead, see how boring it would be, and not participate to begin with. Free will.
If you're arguing that because your brain is making your decisions you don't have free will, you're already arguing from a point of supernaturalism.
Unless you're going to interject some supernatural force -- always assumed on faith, never evidence -- then, yes, physics can explain things. But, there is a huge leap from understanding physices (what is understood) and presuming that a comprehensive model can be developed of a system with tetra volumes of information.
People often mistake that volume as the supernatural. Any presumption of something superior is just god of the gaps, of which the whole solipsism thing is just a godless version.
Solipsism is a cannard which can be exposed by simply asking why a solipsist needs to ask others how they can prove they exist. Or that you need a language (and need to speak/write it proficiently enough to be understood) begs the idea that everything is brain container contents. No, the physical world is real.
There is just as significant a leap of logic and faith to presume that because you cannot directly experience the thoughts of others (you can directly experience the world, that's what nerves are all about) that none save yourself actually exist.
Here's an experiment you can do to prove beyond a shadow that the world exists. Take yourself, a chair, a hammer and a not-so-good friend; sit with your eyes closed imagining a benign world as your not-so munches the back of your skull with said hammer. You will no longer argue the idea that the world is simply some mental construct of yours. Easy.
Lindzen - 2007 Newsweek, Inc. "Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Please. I registered and after the two week wait... no more telemarketers. Call and report the violators, they're breaking the law.
Yes,yes. Our ancestors didn't know as much as we and we not as much as our progeny will. The world as it has and will be.
Yet despite the gloomy prose, it is a better place now than then. I certainly wouldn't want to live a hundred years ago, what with hardly any refrigeration, biomedicine, etc. And, it will be a better place in the future.
"Entropy is always increasing, and nature will have her way."
Meaningless. Entropy is physics, not social or biological.
"...and we approach the process to create a more holistic child, and not just to further the Aryan state."
You're worried that much about neo-Nazis? Don't be. Oh, I think you mean we'll try to eliminate genetic abnormalities and try to make the kids physically and mentally better. That would be bad why?
Um, no. Not even close. Those areas are so vague (temporal, visual, general logic, etc) that you cannot tell even what topic, much less what thoughts are going on.
MRI is easier and far less intrusive, but still no.
Just a point. Leeches are used because they're the best thing available. They have their own pharmaceutical lab with them and exercise extreme precision in their technique. They didn't used to be used here (US) and then made a comeback.
Wow! What the hell were you doing/where were you going that you got so much? I look at tits and ass online and still only get some 10-20 a day on a heavy day. Wow.
Yes, this can happen in print. In the real world, people who persue democracy are hardly willing to be told all of their work belong to gov and so would either not impliment actual communism or quickly dissassemble it.
It don't work. Marxists need to get over it.
That would be getting arrested for disobeying a court order. Don't conflate, the context was getting arrested for a simple link (like, out of the blue), not for links explicitely cited by court.
Wasn't there an article just in the last week or so about the inability of people to get their enhancements and features added? You will never find CS adopting the idea of people adding and modifying willy-nilly. Specifically, what attributes of OS do you see CS adopting?
"...if such a thing even exists..."
Counterfeit money, stocks, bonds, etc.
Really? Then you and your wife are at the low end. This from the AFT page. "... the average teacher salary was $47,602."
They then state they would like to see a 30% pay increase.
Follow the links, the pic is there. The school is absolutely in the wrong. The university system in the US is attempting to become morals police. Unfortunately, they're hypocrits, as they use suppressive 'morals' in their attempt to squash out anything they feel inferior. Look at the recent introduction of community service as a course requirement.
"You can't record a song (in your own voice) that you heard on the radio"
Sure you can. What you can't do is record it, then sell it without paying royalties.
What a bunch of crap. Google has no 'right' to distribute whatever the hell . If I have a copyrighted material I don't want distributed by Google and their users want it, too bad. I own the friggin' right to decide distribution, not you, not Google. They are definitely not on the right side.
This 'silent majority' you speak of is like the silent majority Pat Robertson spoke of.