...and the whole thing would centrifugally fly away from earth rather than fall back down.
Um, not exactly*. It's not really attached to the Earth. For example, the article describes it as "the floating base platform". The base (Earth) end is essentially hanging from the center of mass at geosynchronous orbit. If you cut away part of the Earth end, the part below the cut will fall to Earth and the part above will basically stay hanging.
If you cut high enough to throw the center of mass away from geosychronous orbit, several things will happen:
Lots of stuff will far to Earth (you had to cut high enough to do this).
The whole cable will move horizontally through the air (CG beyond GEO means it is moving slower than the Earth rotates, so the hanging cable will move towards the Indian Ocean).
The whole mass will probably start to rotate relative to Earth.
It will move into an eliptical orbit meaning it will move closer and further away from the Earth as it orbits.
So essentially it should do a bunch of funny motions from our point of view. I'm not sure how air resistence at the lower end would affect it. I think it's safe to say it will not fly off into space. It is in orbit after all, it'd just be higher than GEO.
*IANARS, but I do work in the space industry and have taken grad courses in orbital mechanics and dynamics. I also have not studied the actual design, so there may be some effects I've missed or misinterpreted.
No way, man. If they put some rock-climbing holds on this thing I'd be there so fast. Man, that'd be like a 2,000,000 pitch climb. Better bring my climbing tent. Better buy one first.
Nope, unless you meet the conditions required for legally copying (see below). Copyright laws do cover distribution, as you state, but also cover copying (hence the name "copyright"). When you download a song, you are making a copy of it. You only have the legal right to do so if: (a) it is in the public domain (no copyright owner), (b) you have permission from the copyright owner, or (c) you have a "fair use" exception, which are limited to a few uses. (There may be other cases I'm forgetting.) You example of reading the newspaper with a copyright violation is not valid because you are not making a copy. If you photocopied the article in the newspaper, you would indeed be in violation but could get off on the "reasonable expectation" (see discussion below).
Your knowledge of the state of the material (copyrighted or not) is irrelevant as to whether you are violating the copyright or not (except in the criminal case, which explicitely requires knowledge as written in that specific law). It might affect the punishment, but only if it was reasonable for you not to be aware.
For example, if you buy a stolen TV from a van in an alley you cannot get off claiming that you didn't know it was stolen. Omission of asking is not an excuse, the "reasonable expectation" of the circumstances are taken into account. If you download a Britney Spears song (despite the taste crime you are commiting) it is reasonable to expect that it probably is being illegally distributed unless you are downloading it from her record label directly. Claiming you didn't know won't get you off.
I'm not stating the way things should be, but the current state of (my understanding of) the laws. I have a big problem with these laws, and RIAA tactics, but they are what they are at the moment.
But ignorance of what the law is, and not knowing that a particular action breaks a given law, are different things, surely?
Nope. If you are speeding but your spedometer says you are under the limit (i.e., it's broken), you can still be fined. Though IANAL, what you are refering to are generally called "mitigating circumstances". The speeding ticket might be thrown out or reduced because of sympathy, but you still broke the law and are punishable by it.
Same idea with downloading. The fact that you didn't know it was copyrighted is irrelevant as to whether you violated the copyright and can be sued for it. However, knowledge of it is required for the criminal version of copyright infringement -- not because laws to generally apply in such cases, but because these criminal copyright laws specifically wrote the requirement in. You can still be sued though.
You've already bought into the environmentalist agenda when you automatically assume that any rearrangement of energy in the environment is "harm".
I had to laugh, because if you think I've bought into the "environmentalist agenda" you obviously don't know me. Well, there's also the fact that you don't know me.
I'll give you that "harm" is a somewhat subjective term in this context. Perhaps "change" is better, though I don't see it as much of a stretch to call it "harm", but then I see the "harm" as inevitable so not such a big deal. I didn't strictly mean it in the sense of affecting the ecosystem for other living creatures. Humans are also affected. We are somewhat used to the current patterns of nature (which do change), but sudden changes by large draws of energy from nature can have big effects, causing flooding, changing weather patterns, erosions, etc., that cause significant damage to property and human lives.
That being said, I have always thought as you stated, that ecosystems evolve and change. Everything that humans do is part of the natural pattern of things because humans occured here naturally as much as any other living creature. But, I do see that understanding the "totality" of effects caused by a new energy sources is necessary, or at least desirable, to choose an appropriate method. Claims of cheap, easy, or clean energy sources rarely are in the long run.
And I don't have to do any investigation by myself. Instead, I have to be informed about any legal nature of the content at the moment I've tried to download the content.
Um, no. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil) and if certain thresholds are met it is also criminal. Ignorance may play a part in penalty or settlement.
The issue with P2P is not whether or not it is legal to download or redistribute the (copyrighted) files. That's simple, it isn't. There's a variety of issues, including the fact that the laws are unjust and counter-productive, the despicable RIAA tactics, the business model of RIAA and member companies, monopolies, and how the RIAA and music industry treat artists and consumers, to name but a few.
But there is a useful point hidden in your message. I've always wondered whether downloading a song is in fact illegal. Certainly making it available (distributing) is illegal, and that's about the only way the RIAA can catch you, by finding copyrighted songs available on your computer. I know the copyright laws talk about distribution, but I'm not clear on what they say about accepting illegally distributed copyrighted materials (consuming). Can they even really catch you downloading?
As far as I know, with P2P you can't see who is downloading unless they are downloading from you. So the only way the RIAA can see you downloading is if you download from one of their computers, which would either be legal (if they have the copyright to distribute the songs) or they'd be breaking the law themselves (distributing the songs without proper copyright authorization).
C'mon BillG, you KNOW it should have been "developers such as I"
Actually, turning off my joke meter for a minute, that's grammatically incorrect. "I" is a subject, "me" is an object. In simplistic terms, "I" comes before a verb ("I developed...") and "me" comes at the end of a prepositional phrase ("...such as me"). That's not the whole of it, but covers most common mistakes. Me would suggest checking a grammar book, if you don't belive I.
>> While solar, wind and tidal power look very attractive, they suffer from the problem of being at the mercy of nature.
>I think the biggest problem with these technologies is that they take up very large areas.
There are a variety of problems associated with so-called "clean" energy sources. Unpredictability and size are certainly two. Another problem is that they often aren't environmentally friendly. Most people are aware of the damage caused by hydro-electric dams, but similar effects come from all natural sources. Tidal power obviously affects currents and erosion. Even solar and wind power on large scale will affect weather patterns and climate in addition to the effects of their sheer size.
Basically, you can't just extract energy from the environment (technically, move it, since it isn't being destroyed) without affecting the natural sinks for that energy. True, fossil fuels and nuclear add to the net energy (since they were stored in the ground), so perhaps they are worse in that sense. There's really no solution that doesn't cause some harm.
> Personally, I would attribute any evolved correspondence to the dangers inherent from approaching thunderstorms and stampeding elephants, but who knows?
Possibly, but you are also assuming an "intended" cause (in the evolutionary sense) of the reaction. It is possible that it is simply a side-effect from parts that evolved for other reasons being stimulated in a different way. There are some good examples, but the best I can do off the top of my head is that people often sneeze when suddenly exposed to sunlight, apparently IIRC due to stimulation of nerves that are incorrectly interpreted as needing to clear the nasal passage.
>It does matter, because if you build rocketships based on the ficticious one, they will not go anywhere.
You must not have read the first line in what you quoted from me. The model must work. If the rocketship doesn't fly, the model doesn't "...work at predicting all behaviour we can observe".
My point was essentially the same as your comment "If it predicts just as much observable phenomena as the standard model and quantum mechanics, wherein lies the value? That exactly what I mean. If two models produce the same result, does it really matter which one (if either) is the "truth"? (To specifically answer your question though, superstring theory may get around the incompatability of quantum mechanics and relativity.)
To put this into context of the message I was responding to, does it really matter if we can't create the energies required to "test" superstring theory in a "controled environment"? If superstring theory can accurately explain everything we can observe, does it really matter that we aren't able to test it in conditions we can't create? I'm not saying it does work, I'm saying if it does. Then that model would be valid for every observable phenomenon. I don't think it would be fair to state that it is just an "hypothesis" in such a case. It's not an hypothesis, it's a model.
I'm not sure I'd completely agree with that. True, that sort of test would be ideal. However, while it is true we can't synthetically test it, that's not always necessary for it to have scientific value.
Science isn't so much about finding the "material truth", it's about finding an appropriate "model". For instance, Newton wasn't wrong per se, his model was just incomplete. We still use his model for predicting the majority of practical behaviours outside of experimental physics. Einstein came up with a better model, but we know it isn't complete because relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable. Still, those models work in their respective applications.
If superstring theory is able to work at predicting all behaviour we can observe, it doesn't really matter if the concept is correct. In other words, if two different phenomena (conceptually) always produce the exact same results, does it matter if our model is based on the "real" one or the ficticious one?
True, there is a desire to know the "truth" of a given situation, but a model that works for all observable phenomena is certainly sufficient for most reasons we use science. Requiring that we create a phenomenon that we can't normally observe is useful for testing the truth of the model, but not necessary its practicality.
You really don't know much about control systems, do you. There is no such thing as a control system that can maintain a constant speed in the face of perturbations. You can design them to optimally respond by returning to the set speed as fast as possible, but even with a finely tuned cruise-control (usually a PID controller) it will change up to +/-5 km/h or so at the start of an up or down hill, depending on its steepness.
Humans have the same "problem". You may be the best at keeping the pedal at the same location, but that means you will slow down on uphills and speed up on downhills. You can't possibly maintain constant speed, especially without constantly looking at your spedometer which requires you to ignore traffic.
Furthermore, people trying to maintain constant speed without looking at their spedometer tend to use surrounding traffic as their cue, which usually means they drift up or down with it, perhaps +/-10 km/h before noticing. That's good for safety but bad for independent obeyance of the speed limit. What exact cue do you use to maintain constant speed?
Not quite. If you don't want anyone to do something with it, you keep it to yourself. If you publically express it, there are certain obligations that go along with that*. Your thoughts or ideas might spark other thoughts and ideas (e.g, derivative works, improvements to inventions, etc.). It is in the public's best interest to allow such things to occur in the name of innovation and progress. Publically expressing yourself and then forbidding others from expressing their derivative (or modified) works just stiffles such progress or innovation and frustrates the public.
*This is not entirely a legal argument, although there are some legal obligations. But it is my understanding of what IP was supposed to be about, and IMHO how it should be.
Disclaimer: I work for a NASA contractor doing flight support and analysis, often at JSC.
I agree with L0C0loco take on things, but add to it. One problem I see is very little in the way of "proportional management" (if that's a term. If not, I'm trademarking it.) =)
As an example, I just spend about 3 months preparing a simple presentation on a simple analysis we did. The presentation went through about 12 reviews with the customer (one NASA group), involving about 4 or 5 people including higher managers. I just presented it today to another NASA group here at JSC. Just the presentation cost hundreds of hours at a high pay rate (managers, analysts, etc.). The analysis itself was quite informal, and knowing NASA culture, the numbers and findings will be used as if etched in stone.
In short, much effort (and money) went into a presentation that we didn't even fully get through, whereas the important part, the analysis, was underfunded and informal yet the results will probably be used as facts even though the analysts (such as me) don't agree they should be. All that matters is that somebody somewhere did some analysis that said such-and-such was ok, therefore NASA has done all it has to do to prove safety.
Which brings me to a second problem -- NASA tends to use analysis numbers as facts without understanding the context, the uncertainty, or even the analyst's opinions of the data.
The problem is, if everyone keeps looking at their spedometer, they aren't paying attention to the road. It's also impossible to do just under the limit without occasionally dipping over it, even with cruise-control. Effectively, this will reduce the speed limit since nobody can actually do the limit reliably.
Then there's the problem of calibration. Would the recording be based on the spedometer in the car? They're not all the same. Simply changing tire size will screw them up, and two cars moving at the same speed may have different spedometer readings (by a few mph or km/h). It also encourages tampering.
This approach might work if there's a time limit on the speeding, i.e., short bursts of a few seconds (e.g., to pass or avoid an accident) are ok, but long periods are not allowed. That would be a first step.
Ha, finally something on slashdot I can relate to. I can actually say I have an astronaut friend, I've even had one call me at home.
But it would be more useful to be able to say I had a friend who was a mechanic. Then I could get my car fixed for free. Guess I'll just have to sign up for one of those learn-at-home schools to get my mechanics certificate. Either that, or interior decorating.
> The problem is that once you own it, you can reverse-engineer it all you like.
OK, but you could photocopy that book you bought and sell copies to everyone too. Not exactly analagous, but same "you could do things they don't want you to" argument. Doesn't justify the licensing model over the ownership model.
(Yes, I realize your sarcasm. But it does seem to be the actual argument software companies use.)
They already got paid when it was first purchased. Should Ford get paid again if I sell my Mustang? That would just encourage manufacturers to produce crappier products, stuff you really want at first but then re-sell very quickly - who would then re-sell it, and so on, making the manufacturer loads of cash without doing anything.
{Insert joke here about some crappy product that already meets this description.)
True, I agree with all that. But for it to work it needs critical mass and visibility. If it doesn't achieve those, it's probably more likely to backfire as I've suggested.
But, being a person of principle myself, I'm essentially boycotting CDs myself and haven't bought one in years, starting with EMI artists when EMI (and later HFA) shut down the On-Line Guitar Archive (OLGA).
While I applaud your conviction to your principles, can't this method easily backfire? The RIAA has already been attributing declining sales to illegal P2P sharing. If your goal is to hurt them by boycotting CD purchasing, sales will slip more and they'll have even more amunition and laws against P2P may dig in deeper. True, they'd be wrong it's P2P's fault, but when has that ever stopped them?
Likewise, one of the standard arguments against the RIAA's position is that P2P often increases sales by exposing different artists to the public, with P2P as an artist search and 'try-before-you-buy' tool.
So, by boycotting are we not giving them more ammunition and taking away some of ours? We do have truth and reason on our side either way, but that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to lawmakers, lobbyists, and lawsuits.
RTFA. They didn't pirate software. They (apparently) didn't even use the violating software instances. It was older machines given to new people without properly wiping the harddrive. That's the problem with many software licensing systems, you can suddenly be in violation without knowing it. Perhaps these problems would go away if we all switched to a software ownership model, like just about all other products people buy, instead of a licensing model.
True, thanks for adding that. I guess the actual point is that all CO2 from fossil fuels is added to the environment. In terms of CO2 output, biomass energy would have to produce a significant excess (above the biomass usage) of CO2 before fossil fuels would become a better approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, not exactly*. It's not really attached to the Earth. For example, the article describes it as "the floating base platform". The base (Earth) end is essentially hanging from the center of mass at geosynchronous orbit. If you cut away part of the Earth end, the part below the cut will fall to Earth and the part above will basically stay hanging.
If you cut high enough to throw the center of mass away from geosychronous orbit, several things will happen:
Lots of stuff will far to Earth (you had to cut high enough to do this).
The whole cable will move horizontally through the air (CG beyond GEO means it is moving slower than the Earth rotates, so the hanging cable will move towards the Indian Ocean).
The whole mass will probably start to rotate relative to Earth.
It will move into an eliptical orbit meaning it will move closer and further away from the Earth as it orbits.
So essentially it should do a bunch of funny motions from our point of view. I'm not sure how air resistence at the lower end would affect it. I think it's safe to say it will not fly off into space. It is in orbit after all, it'd just be higher than GEO. *IANARS, but I do work in the space industry and have taken grad courses in orbital mechanics and dynamics. I also have not studied the actual design, so there may be some effects I've missed or misinterpreted.
No way, man. If they put some rock-climbing holds on this thing I'd be there so fast. Man, that'd be like a 2,000,000 pitch climb. Better bring my climbing tent. Better buy one first.
So I expect you to have this 3D desktop on my ... umm ... desktop by tomorrow morning.
Nope, unless you meet the conditions required for legally copying (see below). Copyright laws do cover distribution, as you state, but also cover copying (hence the name "copyright"). When you download a song, you are making a copy of it. You only have the legal right to do so if: (a) it is in the public domain (no copyright owner), (b) you have permission from the copyright owner, or (c) you have a "fair use" exception, which are limited to a few uses. (There may be other cases I'm forgetting.) You example of reading the newspaper with a copyright violation is not valid because you are not making a copy. If you photocopied the article in the newspaper, you would indeed be in violation but could get off on the "reasonable expectation" (see discussion below).
Your knowledge of the state of the material (copyrighted or not) is irrelevant as to whether you are violating the copyright or not (except in the criminal case, which explicitely requires knowledge as written in that specific law). It might affect the punishment, but only if it was reasonable for you not to be aware.
For example, if you buy a stolen TV from a van in an alley you cannot get off claiming that you didn't know it was stolen. Omission of asking is not an excuse, the "reasonable expectation" of the circumstances are taken into account. If you download a Britney Spears song (despite the taste crime you are commiting) it is reasonable to expect that it probably is being illegally distributed unless you are downloading it from her record label directly. Claiming you didn't know won't get you off.
I'm not stating the way things should be, but the current state of (my understanding of) the laws. I have a big problem with these laws, and RIAA tactics, but they are what they are at the moment.
Nope. If you are speeding but your spedometer says you are under the limit (i.e., it's broken), you can still be fined. Though IANAL, what you are refering to are generally called "mitigating circumstances". The speeding ticket might be thrown out or reduced because of sympathy, but you still broke the law and are punishable by it.
Same idea with downloading. The fact that you didn't know it was copyrighted is irrelevant as to whether you violated the copyright and can be sued for it. However, knowledge of it is required for the criminal version of copyright infringement -- not because laws to generally apply in such cases, but because these criminal copyright laws specifically wrote the requirement in. You can still be sued though.
I had to laugh, because if you think I've bought into the "environmentalist agenda" you obviously don't know me. Well, there's also the fact that you don't know me.
I'll give you that "harm" is a somewhat subjective term in this context. Perhaps "change" is better, though I don't see it as much of a stretch to call it "harm", but then I see the "harm" as inevitable so not such a big deal. I didn't strictly mean it in the sense of affecting the ecosystem for other living creatures. Humans are also affected. We are somewhat used to the current patterns of nature (which do change), but sudden changes by large draws of energy from nature can have big effects, causing flooding, changing weather patterns, erosions, etc., that cause significant damage to property and human lives.
That being said, I have always thought as you stated, that ecosystems evolve and change. Everything that humans do is part of the natural pattern of things because humans occured here naturally as much as any other living creature. But, I do see that understanding the "totality" of effects caused by a new energy sources is necessary, or at least desirable, to choose an appropriate method. Claims of cheap, easy, or clean energy sources rarely are in the long run.
Um, no. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright owner, whether you know you are doing it or not, is certainly copyright infringement (civil) and if certain thresholds are met it is also criminal. Ignorance may play a part in penalty or settlement.
The issue with P2P is not whether or not it is legal to download or redistribute the (copyrighted) files. That's simple, it isn't. There's a variety of issues, including the fact that the laws are unjust and counter-productive, the despicable RIAA tactics, the business model of RIAA and member companies, monopolies, and how the RIAA and music industry treat artists and consumers, to name but a few.
But there is a useful point hidden in your message. I've always wondered whether downloading a song is in fact illegal. Certainly making it available (distributing) is illegal, and that's about the only way the RIAA can catch you, by finding copyrighted songs available on your computer. I know the copyright laws talk about distribution, but I'm not clear on what they say about accepting illegally distributed copyrighted materials (consuming). Can they even really catch you downloading?
As far as I know, with P2P you can't see who is downloading unless they are downloading from you. So the only way the RIAA can see you downloading is if you download from one of their computers, which would either be legal (if they have the copyright to distribute the songs) or they'd be breaking the law themselves (distributing the songs without proper copyright authorization).
Actually, turning off my joke meter for a minute, that's grammatically incorrect. "I" is a subject, "me" is an object. In simplistic terms, "I" comes before a verb ("I developed...") and "me" comes at the end of a prepositional phrase ("...such as me"). That's not the whole of it, but covers most common mistakes. Me would suggest checking a grammar book, if you don't belive I.
>I think the biggest problem with these technologies is that they take up very large areas.
There are a variety of problems associated with so-called "clean" energy sources. Unpredictability and size are certainly two. Another problem is that they often aren't environmentally friendly. Most people are aware of the damage caused by hydro-electric dams, but similar effects come from all natural sources. Tidal power obviously affects currents and erosion. Even solar and wind power on large scale will affect weather patterns and climate in addition to the effects of their sheer size.
Basically, you can't just extract energy from the environment (technically, move it, since it isn't being destroyed) without affecting the natural sinks for that energy. True, fossil fuels and nuclear add to the net energy (since they were stored in the ground), so perhaps they are worse in that sense. There's really no solution that doesn't cause some harm.
Possibly, but you are also assuming an "intended" cause (in the evolutionary sense) of the reaction. It is possible that it is simply a side-effect from parts that evolved for other reasons being stimulated in a different way. There are some good examples, but the best I can do off the top of my head is that people often sneeze when suddenly exposed to sunlight, apparently IIRC due to stimulation of nerves that are incorrectly interpreted as needing to clear the nasal passage.
You must not have read the first line in what you quoted from me. The model must work. If the rocketship doesn't fly, the model doesn't "...work at predicting all behaviour we can observe".
My point was essentially the same as your comment "If it predicts just as much observable phenomena as the standard model and quantum mechanics, wherein lies the value? That exactly what I mean. If two models produce the same result, does it really matter which one (if either) is the "truth"? (To specifically answer your question though, superstring theory may get around the incompatability of quantum mechanics and relativity.)
To put this into context of the message I was responding to, does it really matter if we can't create the energies required to "test" superstring theory in a "controled environment"? If superstring theory can accurately explain everything we can observe, does it really matter that we aren't able to test it in conditions we can't create? I'm not saying it does work, I'm saying if it does. Then that model would be valid for every observable phenomenon. I don't think it would be fair to state that it is just an "hypothesis" in such a case. It's not an hypothesis, it's a model.
Science isn't so much about finding the "material truth", it's about finding an appropriate "model". For instance, Newton wasn't wrong per se, his model was just incomplete. We still use his model for predicting the majority of practical behaviours outside of experimental physics. Einstein came up with a better model, but we know it isn't complete because relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable. Still, those models work in their respective applications.
If superstring theory is able to work at predicting all behaviour we can observe, it doesn't really matter if the concept is correct. In other words, if two different phenomena (conceptually) always produce the exact same results, does it matter if our model is based on the "real" one or the ficticious one?
True, there is a desire to know the "truth" of a given situation, but a model that works for all observable phenomena is certainly sufficient for most reasons we use science. Requiring that we create a phenomenon that we can't normally observe is useful for testing the truth of the model, but not necessary its practicality.
Humans have the same "problem". You may be the best at keeping the pedal at the same location, but that means you will slow down on uphills and speed up on downhills. You can't possibly maintain constant speed, especially without constantly looking at your spedometer which requires you to ignore traffic.
Furthermore, people trying to maintain constant speed without looking at their spedometer tend to use surrounding traffic as their cue, which usually means they drift up or down with it, perhaps +/-10 km/h before noticing. That's good for safety but bad for independent obeyance of the speed limit. What exact cue do you use to maintain constant speed?
Amen to that. Don't get me started. Don't even get me started.
*This is not entirely a legal argument, although there are some legal obligations. But it is my understanding of what IP was supposed to be about, and IMHO how it should be.
I agree with L0C0loco take on things, but add to it. One problem I see is very little in the way of "proportional management" (if that's a term. If not, I'm trademarking it.) =)
As an example, I just spend about 3 months preparing a simple presentation on a simple analysis we did. The presentation went through about 12 reviews with the customer (one NASA group), involving about 4 or 5 people including higher managers. I just presented it today to another NASA group here at JSC. Just the presentation cost hundreds of hours at a high pay rate (managers, analysts, etc.). The analysis itself was quite informal, and knowing NASA culture, the numbers and findings will be used as if etched in stone.
In short, much effort (and money) went into a presentation that we didn't even fully get through, whereas the important part, the analysis, was underfunded and informal yet the results will probably be used as facts even though the analysts (such as me) don't agree they should be. All that matters is that somebody somewhere did some analysis that said such-and-such was ok, therefore NASA has done all it has to do to prove safety.
Which brings me to a second problem -- NASA tends to use analysis numbers as facts without understanding the context, the uncertainty, or even the analyst's opinions of the data.
Then there's the problem of calibration. Would the recording be based on the spedometer in the car? They're not all the same. Simply changing tire size will screw them up, and two cars moving at the same speed may have different spedometer readings (by a few mph or km/h). It also encourages tampering.
This approach might work if there's a time limit on the speeding, i.e., short bursts of a few seconds (e.g., to pass or avoid an accident) are ok, but long periods are not allowed. That would be a first step.
How many people at /. can say they have a friend?
(Aibos don't count.)
But it would be more useful to be able to say I had a friend who was a mechanic. Then I could get my car fixed for free. Guess I'll just have to sign up for one of those learn-at-home schools to get my mechanics certificate. Either that, or interior decorating.
OK, but you could photocopy that book you bought and sell copies to everyone too. Not exactly analagous, but same "you could do things they don't want you to" argument. Doesn't justify the licensing model over the ownership model.
(Yes, I realize your sarcasm. But it does seem to be the actual argument software companies use.)
{Insert joke here about some crappy product that already meets this description.)
But, being a person of principle myself, I'm essentially boycotting CDs myself and haven't bought one in years, starting with EMI artists when EMI (and later HFA) shut down the On-Line Guitar Archive (OLGA).
The backfiring thing is just a worry though.
Likewise, one of the standard arguments against the RIAA's position is that P2P often increases sales by exposing different artists to the public, with P2P as an artist search and 'try-before-you-buy' tool.
So, by boycotting are we not giving them more ammunition and taking away some of ours? We do have truth and reason on our side either way, but that doesn't seem to matter when it comes to lawmakers, lobbyists, and lawsuits.
RTFA. They didn't pirate software. They (apparently) didn't even use the violating software instances. It was older machines given to new people without properly wiping the harddrive. That's the problem with many software licensing systems, you can suddenly be in violation without knowing it. Perhaps these problems would go away if we all switched to a software ownership model, like just about all other products people buy, instead of a licensing model.
True, thanks for adding that. I guess the actual point is that all CO2 from fossil fuels is added to the environment. In terms of CO2 output, biomass energy would have to produce a significant excess (above the biomass usage) of CO2 before fossil fuels would become a better approach.