You might as well tell Nick to plead no contest if you are going to seriously recomend that he hire inexperienced lawyers to take on Apple's legal team.
Obviously you are making up those statistics because you state in your overview that 490 of 1473 the comments made were made by slashdotters and yet the sum of the "breakdown" is 500. Nice try troll.
Dear MPAA,
My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.
Or this will be set as some value greater than 10 depending on its relative hardness.
You mean like 11? As you said, the Mohs scale assigns ordinal values to make relative comparisons, not absolute ones. For a scale which makes absolute comparisons between the standard minerals see this website.
Teleportation is the name given by science fiction writers to the feat of making an object or person disintegrate in one place while a perfect replica appears somewhere else. How this is accomplished is usually not explained in detail, but the general idea seems to be that the original object is scanned in such a way as to extract all the information from it, then this information is transmitted to the receiving location and used to construct the replica, not necessarily from the actual material of the original, but perhaps from atoms of the same kinds, arranged in exactly the same pattern as the original. A teleportation machine would be like a fax machine, except that it would work on 3-dimensional objects as well as documents, it would produce an exact copy rather than an approximate facsimile, and it would destroy the original in the process of scanning it. A few science fiction writers consider teleporters that preserve the original, and the plot gets complicated when the original and teleported versions of the same person meet; but the more common kind of teleporter destroys the original, functioning as a super transportation device, not as a perfect replicator of souls and bodies.
In 1993 an international group of six scientists, including IBM Fellow Charles H. Bennett, confirmed the intuitions of the majority of science fiction writers by showing that perfect teleportation is indeed possible in principle, but only if the original is destroyed. In subsequent years, other scientists have demonstrated teleportation experimentally in a variety of systems, including single photons, coherent light fields, nuclear spins, and trapped ions. Teleportation promises to be quite useful as an information processing primitive, facilitating long range quantum communication (perhaps unltimately leading to a "quantum internet"), and making it much easier to build a working quantum computer. But science fiction fans will be disappointed to learn that no one expects to be able to teleport people or other macroscopic objects in the foreseeable future, for a variety of engineering reasons, even though it would not violate any fundamental law to do so.
In the past, the idea of teleportation was not taken very seriously by scientists, because it was thought to violate the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which forbids any measuring or scanning process from extracting all the information in an atom or other object. According to the uncertainty principle, the more accurately an object is scanned, the more it is disturbed by the scanning process, until one reaches a point where the object's original state has been completely disrupted, still without having extracted enough information to make a perfect replica. This sounds like a solid argument against teleportation: if one cannot extract enough information from an object to make a perfect copy, it would seem that a perfect copy cannot be made. But the six scientists found a way to make an end run around this logic, using a celebrated and paradoxical feature of quantum mechanics known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect.
Why are people are defending Apple's actions of taking on Playfair? To do so would be to legitimize the DMCA.
It's called fair use people, and the DMCA prevents you from having it.
I've read several posts drawing on the comparisons of iTunes and the GPL, which go on to prove by analogy that if we wouldn't like someone to break the GPL liscence we shouldn't like someone breaking the iTunes liscence.
I believe the this is a false analogy however because the GPL is protected by old fashion copyright law (which many slashdotters consider legitimate) and iTunes (at least in the case of PlayFair) is protected by the DMCA (which many slashdotters cosnider illegitimate).
The reason we should/do reject the DMCA is because it prevents us from excercising our free use by preventing us from copying encrypted media. Therefore PlayFair is a fair piece of software (giving us back our fair use rights that Apple tried to take away), and Apple was wrong for going after them.
Why doesn't ICANN just snychronize it's registered domain database with YouCANN's "unoffical" registered domain database, and thus avoid collisons? Or is ICANN so much of a greedy monopoly that it couldn't possibly share its power, and would rather alienate thousands of individuals who registered with YouCANN in the process?
Instead of firewall and AV companies trying to compete for individuals to purchase liscences, maybe instead they should be focusing their time trying to convince Microsoft to purchase their software. Much like what WinZip did with their zip compression software.
It's a win-win situation for everybody. These companies still have potential to gain because well, they are still selling their software. Microsoft gains because of the economic law of comparative advantage. Consumers gain because various companies will be competing to get that liscence with Microsoft. Of course, if say a power user isn't satisfied with the basic firewall or AV software that Microsoft will liscence, they are still free to purchase from other companies which will surely be there to cater to such niche groups.
The reviewer fails to realize that AMD64 has the same instruction sets as the P4 Chip. Previous to the AMD64, the Athlon Chips didn't have the SSE2 instructions. That is why when Intel created the 8.0 compiler, they just compared CPUID's because Intel's chip was the only chip on the market at the time to support SSE2.
Slashdot Mirror
You might as well tell Nick to plead no contest if you are going to seriously recomend that he hire inexperienced lawyers to take on Apple's legal team.
It's not really funny at all.
Uhhh... did you know that prior to this invention criminals can paint their stolen car another color anyway?
You are one dumb motherfucker.
AND I FEEL FINE...
Obviously you are making up those statistics because you state in your overview that 490 of 1473 the comments made were made by slashdotters and yet the sum of the "breakdown" is 500. Nice try troll.
Dear MPAA, My ipaddress is 199.2.120.89. My slashdot username is my real name. I download most of my movies off suprnova.org. Oh yea, and I'm not afraid.
You mean like 11? As you said, the Mohs scale assigns ordinal values to make relative comparisons, not absolute ones. For a scale which makes absolute comparisons between the standard minerals see this website.
God?
In 1993 an international group of six scientists, including IBM Fellow Charles H. Bennett, confirmed the intuitions of the majority of science fiction writers by showing that perfect teleportation is indeed possible in principle, but only if the original is destroyed. In subsequent years, other scientists have demonstrated teleportation experimentally in a variety of systems, including single photons, coherent light fields, nuclear spins, and trapped ions. Teleportation promises to be quite useful as an information processing primitive, facilitating long range quantum communication (perhaps unltimately leading to a "quantum internet"), and making it much easier to build a working quantum computer. But science fiction fans will be disappointed to learn that no one expects to be able to teleport people or other macroscopic objects in the foreseeable future, for a variety of engineering reasons, even though it would not violate any fundamental law to do so.
In the past, the idea of teleportation was not taken very seriously by scientists, because it was thought to violate the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which forbids any measuring or scanning process from extracting all the information in an atom or other object. According to the uncertainty principle, the more accurately an object is scanned, the more it is disturbed by the scanning process, until one reaches a point where the object's original state has been completely disrupted, still without having extracted enough information to make a perfect replica. This sounds like a solid argument against teleportation: if one cannot extract enough information from an object to make a perfect copy, it would seem that a perfect copy cannot be made. But the six scientists found a way to make an end run around this logic, using a celebrated and paradoxical feature of quantum mechanics known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect.
Read just how this effect works, here.
And what exactly is wrong with it being hobbiest software?
Where does the expectation that OSS should work for everyone come from? It's entirely unjustified.
Why are people are defending Apple's actions of taking on Playfair? To do so would be to legitimize the DMCA. It's called fair use people, and the DMCA prevents you from having it.
Part 1 | Part 2
Most websites provide an additonal level of encryption known as SSL to protect credit card transactions.
I've read several posts drawing on the comparisons of iTunes and the GPL, which go on to prove by analogy that if we wouldn't like someone to break the GPL liscence we shouldn't like someone breaking the iTunes liscence.
I believe the this is a false analogy however because the GPL is protected by old fashion copyright law (which many slashdotters consider legitimate) and iTunes (at least in the case of PlayFair) is protected by the DMCA (which many slashdotters cosnider illegitimate).
The reason we should/do reject the DMCA is because it prevents us from excercising our free use by preventing us from copying encrypted media. Therefore PlayFair is a fair piece of software (giving us back our fair use rights that Apple tried to take away), and Apple was wrong for going after them.
I say: "In yo face mac zealots!".
Don't you mean ears? (:
ICANN wouldn't and shouldn't try to appropiate every single TTD that alternative registration entities choose to offer.
You naievely and incorrectly think that porn sites will allow themselves to become easily censored.
Why doesn't ICANN just snychronize it's registered domain database with YouCANN's "unoffical" registered domain database, and thus avoid collisons? Or is ICANN so much of a greedy monopoly that it couldn't possibly share its power, and would rather alienate thousands of individuals who registered with YouCANN in the process?
Let x = 0.999... Then 10x = 9.999... 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 9x = 9 x = 1. x = x. 0.999... = 1
Sounds like Audio Lunchbox is a lot more fair to the artists than iTunes and other online music stores are.
It's a win-win situation for everybody. These companies still have potential to gain because well, they are still selling their software. Microsoft gains because of the economic law of comparative advantage. Consumers gain because various companies will be competing to get that liscence with Microsoft. Of course, if say a power user isn't satisfied with the basic firewall or AV software that Microsoft will liscence, they are still free to purchase from other companies which will surely be there to cater to such niche groups.
The reviewer fails to realize that AMD64 has the same instruction sets as the P4 Chip. Previous to the AMD64, the Athlon Chips didn't have the SSE2 instructions. That is why when Intel created the 8.0 compiler, they just compared CPUID's because Intel's chip was the only chip on the market at the time to support SSE2.