First things first, the 1000 films figure is wrong as far as Bollywood is concerned. There are 1000 films made in India, but Bollywood (based in Mumbai) is not the ONLY film industry. The South has its own highly prolific industry.
Coming to your point, Indian film tickets and rentals don't cost anywhere close to tickets here. So, Bollywoods sells more tickets per film even if the revenue in USD is lower.
how could we sensibly comment on it if we had RTFAed?
I think the danger that thr Dr. refers to is pretty guessable and might not require the article. The danger is not the forking, per se, but the diversion of talent that occurs. In a centralized undemocratic closed system, there are fixed goals at a certain point. As it progresses, due to constraints (human, time, budget, technical..etc), compromises have to be reached. Not everyone will agree with those compromises, but professional discipline dictates that they remain focused and continue. In a GPLed project, if a segment of your talent pool has different ideas about the end goals, they might fork in the middle and deprive your original project of their talent, fragmenting the development effort. You might not necessarily regain an equivalent pool of talent towards your project even if it can be proven to someone interested that your goals are better/more feasible..etc. There is no fiat by which to impose discipline in an open system.
anyone comes out and spouts the "stolen or bought technology" meme, the Wired article says
India's bid to develop its own cryogenic engines suffered several setbacks. In 1992, Russia agreed to give India the technology but reversed the decision after Moscow signed the Missile Technology Control Regime with the United States. Washington objected to giving India the technology because of its potential use for nuclear missiles.
Russia later agreed to sell fully built engines, without passing on the technology, to India.
India developed a rudimentary form of its cryogenic technology in 2001 and several tests were held after that to fine-tune it.
To an extent, I agree. Patents should be granted to implementations and thereafter the concepts embodied in them. If you have an idea, but are unable to implement it or shoddily implement it, let someone else get the chance.
Hasn't this obsession with sanitizing speech become a total farce?
It's not total...yet
When will it be okay to use the word 'slave'? It has a fairly distinct meaning. Should the possible offence, in this case, almost non-existent, cause the word to be abolished altogether because of what people connote the word with?
It might actually be easier to do singing than normal speech
Given that singing and speech aren't mediated by the same parts of the brain. In this book, there's examples of people who can sing sentences, but can't speak them.
But then, what is a 'complex concept'? That depends awfully on the level of education and assimilation of accepted science in the public consciousness. What was a 'complex concept' in 1600 is everyday "intuitive" knowledge today. Would you then deduce that scientists of 1600 didn't understand what they were doing.
Till a few hundred years ago, scientists were philosphers and vice versa, Then, on the basis of mathematical modeling, science made a leap, where philosophers couldn't catch up. IOW, you had to train as a scientist (formally or otherwise) to participate. The layman was distanced from the scientific transformations taking place. But the disparity wasn't great enough, so scientists could be counted upon to bridge their explanations to layman levels. But, your paraphrased quote implies that the disparity between new scientific concepts and metaphors will always remain within certain bounds from the layman's analytical abilities. There's no reason why this should be. It might be possible to realize new perceptual concepts that aren't described in terms of existing everyday concepts, but in a disconnected parallel way (like QM). However, that wouldn't mean that those scientists don't understand what they're doing.
It's already legal to grow and use cannabis for personal use in South Australia.
Decriminalization in order to grow only makes sense for drugs that can organically grown at a variety of locations and don't need to be skilfully processed afterwards.
That limits the effects of decriminalization to pot and psilocybin mushrooms. Not cocaine/coca, heroin/opium, LSD/ergot, mescaline/cactus and synthetics like the various amphetamines (like XTC and meth) or the dissociatives like ketamine or N,N-DMT
Why not legalize pot? What's the point in just decriminalising it?
I'm all for legalization. The original replier said that most likely, decriminalization will occur and not ful legalization. To which, I said that decriminalization only makes sense for pot. And that the legislature won't consider it for other drugs if they're considering drug reform at all.
Slashdot Mirror
First things first, the 1000 films figure is wrong as far as Bollywood is concerned. There are 1000 films made in India, but Bollywood (based in Mumbai) is not the ONLY film industry. The South has its own highly prolific industry.
Coming to your point, Indian film tickets and rentals don't cost anywhere close to tickets here. So, Bollywoods sells more tickets per film even if the revenue in USD is lower.
as their video for 'Hell Bent'
Man, talk about a bad day for me to wake up from a 26 year coma and immediately log onto Slashdot..
26-year coma? Don't switch on your television. Especially during the daytime.
how could we sensibly comment on it if we had RTFAed?
I think the danger that thr Dr. refers to is pretty guessable and might not require the article. The danger is not the forking, per se, but the diversion of talent that occurs. In a centralized undemocratic closed system, there are fixed goals at a certain point. As it progresses, due to constraints (human, time, budget, technical..etc), compromises have to be reached. Not everyone will agree with those compromises, but professional discipline dictates that they remain focused and continue. In a GPLed project, if a segment of your talent pool has different ideas about the end goals, they might fork in the middle and deprive your original project of their talent, fragmenting the development effort. You might not necessarily regain an equivalent pool of talent towards your project even if it can be proven to someone interested that your goals are better/more feasible..etc. There is no fiat by which to impose discipline in an open system.
anyone comes out and spouts the "stolen or bought technology" meme, the Wired article says
India's bid to develop its own cryogenic engines suffered several setbacks. In 1992, Russia agreed to give India the technology but reversed the decision after Moscow signed the Missile Technology Control Regime with the United States. Washington objected to giving India the technology because of its potential use for nuclear missiles.
Russia later agreed to sell fully built engines, without passing on the technology, to India.
India developed a rudimentary form of its cryogenic technology in 2001 and several tests were held after that to fine-tune it.
To an extent, I agree. Patents should be granted to implementations and thereafter the concepts embodied in them. If you have an idea, but are unable to implement it or shoddily implement it, let someone else get the chance.
The ratios apply everywhere.
Or maybe Jackson & "son"
Hasn't this obsession with sanitizing speech become a total farce?
...yet
It's not total
When will it be okay to use the word 'slave'? It has a fairly distinct meaning. Should the possible offence, in this case, almost non-existent, cause the word to be abolished altogether because of what people connote the word with?
Daddy/Bitch
Does anyone care to guess how many violations or abuses that have been uncovered where a private citizens rights have been violated?
Did anyone guess Zero? Because thats exactly how many violations there have been. Zero. Period.
Damn. Then it's even a bigger scam than I thought *LOL*
It might actually be easier to do singing than normal speech
Given that singing and speech aren't mediated by the same parts of the brain. In this book, there's examples of people who can sing sentences, but can't speak them.
Umm, such Network PCs were talked about before, hasn't really caught on...
Does this mean that my $2 million dollars in my PayPal account will be lost?
Are you from Nigeria, by any chance?
Goto's should be avoided in programming. So far, it has gotten this story posted 4-5 times already within the last few months.
But then, what is a 'complex concept'? That depends awfully on the level of education and assimilation of accepted science in the public consciousness. What was a 'complex concept' in 1600 is everyday "intuitive" knowledge today.
Would you then deduce that scientists of 1600 didn't understand what they were doing.
Till a few hundred years ago, scientists were philosphers and vice versa, Then, on the basis of mathematical modeling, science made a leap, where philosophers couldn't catch up. IOW, you had to train as a scientist (formally or otherwise) to participate. The layman was distanced from the scientific transformations taking place. But the disparity wasn't great enough, so scientists could be counted upon to bridge their explanations to layman levels. But, your paraphrased quote implies that the disparity between new scientific concepts and metaphors will always remain within certain bounds from the layman's analytical abilities. There's no reason why this should be. It might be possible to realize new perceptual concepts that aren't described in terms of existing everyday concepts, but in a disconnected parallel way (like QM). However, that wouldn't mean that those scientists don't understand what they're doing.
Now, what can we do about Yellowstone?
What happens if the Earth stops spinning?
How silly!! Of course, we send a crack team (or a team on crack) to detonate some nukes down there and restart the core
What happens if Democrats assume power in 2005?
Here's Peter Jackson's take on it
WTF is so special about Linux and the graphics?
A Maya scene rendered with mental ray will render the same on a Mac, Win or Linux.
All the linux helps is in lower cost, and possibly distributed rendering.
The "made on Linux" doesn't hold much significance in terms of the actual CG created.
And since the university has it's own power plant, it doesn't have to pay retail prices for the elctricity that runs them (or anything else).
:-)
But that plant only powers half the campus. I don't know, which half
Thomas Bunton, second-in-command of the Resnet services (atleast when I was hired as a student RCC).
It's already legal to grow and use cannabis for personal use in South Australia.
Decriminalization in order to grow only makes sense for drugs that can organically grown at a variety of locations and don't need to be skilfully processed afterwards.
That limits the effects of decriminalization to pot and psilocybin mushrooms. Not cocaine/coca, heroin/opium, LSD/ergot, mescaline/cactus and synthetics like the various amphetamines (like XTC and meth) or the dissociatives like ketamine or N,N-DMT
Why not legalize pot? What's the point in just decriminalising it?
I'm all for legalization. The original replier said that most likely, decriminalization will occur and not ful legalization. To which, I said that decriminalization only makes sense for pot. And that the legislature won't consider it for other drugs if they're considering drug reform at all.