As far as wind farms go, almost everyone wants them, but no one wants to be near them or have to see them.
You know, that makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, one of the best places to put them is in farmland in the midwest where only the farmer and his 3 also-farmer neighbors would be able to see it anyway. Second, wind turbines are pretty! Who wouldn't want one?!
Up until about a year ago, diesel was cheaper than regular gasoline on a per-gallon basis. And even when it was more expensive, the increased efficiency meant it was still cheaper on a per-mile basis, when comparing the same model car. And now it's gone back to being cheaper than gas again, a situation which is projected to continue for at least the rest of this year.
Offensive in what way? Smoke? I'll have you know that at least the newer TDI Volkswagens (say, '98 onwards) don't smoke unless either there's something wrong with them, or the owner turned the injection quantity up to make more power and got it too high.
All the ports are on the screen half, and it's twice as thick as the keyboard half.
That could be unfortunate: if the screen is heavier than the keyboard, it would very easily tip over when being used in a normal laptop configuration. Maybe they put ballast under the spacebar?
The part that matters, to me, is the fact that before disclosure is required, the courts are actually looking at the claim rather than simply accepting on face value from the plaintiff that the statements are defamatory.
But on the other hand, how can the claim be evaluated without the anonymous writer being there to defend it? I worry that this could turn into "pre-trying" the defendant before he's identified -- after all, if you've already decided that the statement is defamatory enough to identify the writer, then you're right on the edge of deciding that the writer is guilty, too. It would suck if the court improperly decided to identify the writer, and then he didn't get a fair trial due to the lingering presumption of guilt.
If it's not acceptable to you, then you have a problem with normal in-vitro fertilization (that's been going on for decades now), not just this new thing.
The way this process works, you have to "abort" (by not implanting them into the womb) the majority of the embryos anyway (unless you want to end up with septuplets). The only difference between this and regular in-vitro fertilization is that you choose which one to keep.
I don't have any problems with it, but I am slightly concerned that the world will end up as portrayed in the film Gattaca.
Well, there's always the Star Trek option (World War 3 followed by banning the practice).
Re:Parents choose their baby's name
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You can actually start fashioning humans for specific jobs rather than searching for them.
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."
Re:Wait, I have a better example
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You know, if there's a better way to ensure that your kids won't be racist, I can't think of it...
Here's the ultimate reality check: Copyright only exists in the first place to benefit society, not the author and certainly not the publisher (who, after all, was only a middle man anyway). If new technology benefits society at the cost of publishers, well then they can just go fuck themselves. They have no right to complain!
If copyright holders are dissatisfied with the deal society gives them, then they're free to reject it and allow the works to revert to the Public Domain. It's that simple.
Oh jeez, don't even mention libraries; they're a whole 'nother can of worms! Not only have they been the bane of the content industry's existence for hundreds of years, they've got special explicit exemptions regarding copyright law.
E-books are sold cheaply. Audio books command a premium because, as you youself noted, they have a value beyond the text that is worth paying for.
Audio books command a premium because they had to pay somebody to read them, to do the recording, to manufacture the (typically large number of) tapes or CDs, etc. None of that applies to text-to-speech.
This is less like a professionally-made audio book, and more like the owner of the copy reading it aloud himself.
The first sale doctrine doesn't apply because it's a license, not a sale.
That's bullshit. It doesn't magically become a "license" just because the publisher wants it to be one; it has to fulfill the circumstances of being a license!
Consider the typical software sale: Joe Six-Pack waddles into Best Buy, grabs a box labeled "Microsoft Office" off the shelf, hands some cash over to the guy at the register, and walks out. Considering that not only was there not any explicit contract presented before or during the transaction, but that the publisher wasn't even present, how could there possibly be any sort of contract between the publisher and Joe? Considering that every single aspect of the situation exactly typified the definition of a "sale," how could you possibly hallucinate that it was something else?!
Slashdot Mirror
You know, that makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, one of the best places to put them is in farmland in the midwest where only the farmer and his 3 also-farmer neighbors would be able to see it anyway. Second, wind turbines are pretty! Who wouldn't want one?!
What's your point? Plenty of people get 40-60 mpg in their VW TDIs in American gallons. Heck, I drive like a maniac and still get 40 MPG in my Beetle!
Well you just have ridiculously low standards then, don't you?
An actual fuel sipper, like a Honda Insight, Geo Metro XFI, or VW [Golf|Jetta|New Beetle] TDI, gets at least 40 mpg.
Up until about a year ago, diesel was cheaper than regular gasoline on a per-gallon basis. And even when it was more expensive, the increased efficiency meant it was still cheaper on a per-mile basis, when comparing the same model car. And now it's gone back to being cheaper than gas again, a situation which is projected to continue for at least the rest of this year.
Offensive in what way? Smoke? I'll have you know that at least the newer TDI Volkswagens (say, '98 onwards) don't smoke unless either there's something wrong with them, or the owner turned the injection quantity up to make more power and got it too high.
The Tesla is at 'Vette pricing, for sufficiently high-end values of "'Vette."
What if your company sucks, so you only end up keeping the unlucky candidates?
Oh, that was smart. Now I like the thing even more!
This thing uses flash memory, not a hard drive.
Psion, apparently (seeing as how it's suing everyone else using the word).
Wasn't there an article yesterday or so about people trying to make exactly that: a DMCA-takedown-notice-analogue for defamation complaints?
That could be unfortunate: if the screen is heavier than the keyboard, it would very easily tip over when being used in a normal laptop configuration. Maybe they put ballast under the spacebar?
That's not a lie, that's an opinion. In order to be a lie, a statement must first be a statement of fact.
If, instead, the hamburger shop claimed "[some entity] said we have the best burgers," then they would have to be able to prove it.
Do these other systems you're talking about have touch screens? Do you have a link?
But on the other hand, how can the claim be evaluated without the anonymous writer being there to defend it? I worry that this could turn into "pre-trying" the defendant before he's identified -- after all, if you've already decided that the statement is defamatory enough to identify the writer, then you're right on the edge of deciding that the writer is guilty, too. It would suck if the court improperly decided to identify the writer, and then he didn't get a fair trial due to the lingering presumption of guilt.
(No, I don't have a solution for this.)
If it's not acceptable to you, then you have a problem with normal in-vitro fertilization (that's been going on for decades now), not just this new thing.
"Eugenics" literally means "good genes." Nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing about the means of selecting the good genes!
Now, quit blathering about with your narrow, obsolete definition; nobody cares!
The way this process works, you have to "abort" (by not implanting them into the womb) the majority of the embryos anyway (unless you want to end up with septuplets). The only difference between this and regular in-vitro fertilization is that you choose which one to keep.
Well, there's always the Star Trek option (World War 3 followed by banning the practice).
You know, if there's a better way to ensure that your kids won't be racist, I can't think of it...
Here's the ultimate reality check: Copyright only exists in the first place to benefit society, not the author and certainly not the publisher (who, after all, was only a middle man anyway). If new technology benefits society at the cost of publishers, well then they can just go fuck themselves. They have no right to complain!
If copyright holders are dissatisfied with the deal society gives them, then they're free to reject it and allow the works to revert to the Public Domain. It's that simple.
Oh jeez, don't even mention libraries; they're a whole 'nother can of worms! Not only have they been the bane of the content industry's existence for hundreds of years, they've got special explicit exemptions regarding copyright law.
Audio books command a premium because they had to pay somebody to read them, to do the recording, to manufacture the (typically large number of) tapes or CDs, etc. None of that applies to text-to-speech.
This is less like a professionally-made audio book, and more like the owner of the copy reading it aloud himself.
That's bullshit. It doesn't magically become a "license" just because the publisher wants it to be one; it has to fulfill the circumstances of being a license!
Consider the typical software sale: Joe Six-Pack waddles into Best Buy, grabs a box labeled "Microsoft Office" off the shelf, hands some cash over to the guy at the register, and walks out. Considering that not only was there not any explicit contract presented before or during the transaction, but that the publisher wasn't even present, how could there possibly be any sort of contract between the publisher and Joe? Considering that every single aspect of the situation exactly typified the definition of a "sale," how could you possibly hallucinate that it was something else?!