Theft is depriving someone of their property, preventing its use. Copying does not deprive the original owner of their property or its use.
Theft is naturally unethical (e.g. stealing another animal's food - possibly depriving it of life). Copying is naturally ethical (e.g. most of nature copies copiously, and thrives off of it - ever heard of DNA?).
Modern humans just happened to decide to provide an *artificial* monopoly of law (an unnatural construct) that allows someone to specify who can copy their works. HUGE difference.
How many times do we have to explain that copying something is different than stealing something?
It is incredibly *dangerous* to our culture to have the vernacular polluted in a way that equates a criminal deed to a legally mandated civil disregard.
I think a bigger fact missed here is the amount of oil that is used in the production of industrialized food, which is what is making everyone fat.
My guess is that the production and processing of the epic amounts of corn and meat easily use more oil than the marginally extra that is used in lost efficiency of vehicles because of fat people.
If people ate healthier, then we would probably rely less on these industrial processes.
I knew I wanted it ever since I was 14, and at 18 drove to a neighboring state where it was legal to get it: It's a circle on my upper right shoulder blade. Many Greek mathematicians/philosophers considered it a symbol of perfection.
And screw these people who say tattoos suck, it's your body, do with it what you want. It's an art form, of course some people don't get it. But I do agree with those who say that you should think long and hard about what you are getting. Do not do it on a whim.
It's true. I hate programming in C, much less moving down to assembly. On top of that, kernel programming is just not that interesting to me.
Sure, poo-poo PHP and JS. They have their place, and some really interesting stuff is being built with them (especially with PHP >= 5.3, or server-side JS). Quite frankly, I'll program in any language that gives me the tools to *easily* create what I've constructed in my head.
And if something I build happens to run slowly to the point where I have to drop down and code something in C, I'll pay one of you "cranky old men" to do it for me. But most of the time it's just an architectural problem that wouldn't have been created any differently with a different, lower level, language (for example, caching). After all, it's not like I'm crunching the latest numbers that come out of CERN.
Not that I don't value kernel development, trust me, I do.
My biggest problem with this (and most) legislation at the federal level is that The Constitution doesn't allow it. These matters were meant to be left up to the states.
If each and every one of the 50 states passed this separately, I would have considerably less issue with it.
Bringsjord acknowledges that the endeavor to create pure evil, even in a software program, does raise ethical questions, such as, how researchers could control an artificially intelligent character like E if "he" was placed in a virtual world such as Second Life...
Seriously? You could control it by deleting it if it got out of hand.
In my opinion, having it enter a virtual world posing as a real person would definitely prove whether or not it has the AI that it does, evil AI or not.
The more likely explanation is that this "evil" AI only works within a very limited construct of creator-controlled existence.
If you are also utilizing SQL Server (2005/2008), one option would be Service Broker, as it has guaranteed message delivery. And as long as at least one of the endpoints is using the Standard Edition or better, the rest can use the free express version.
Generally, I would agree with you. Cutting useless government programs is a good thing (though, judging by your example, we'd probably have very different ideas of what to cut). Based on that assumption, I think you have to look at the merit of the project as a basis for implementation, and not just whether or not it can be paid for. The question (as many other posts have hit on) is whether pouring more tax dollars, where ever they come from, into colleges is worth it. Some would see that the colleges raise tuition in response to the "free" money as evidence that it doesn't work, and that just hurts the people that pay for college on their own. To me, that doesn't seem very fair.
"Free" is probably the most improperly used word in modern vocabulary. There are so few things in life that are actually "free". It costs somebody something. I would prefer to call this "tax-subsidized education" (an accurately descriptive name), but then the beneficiaries would feel as though people have pity for them instead of thinking this benefit comes out of thin air.
So, you're saying that Intel selling these laptops below what they cost is a bad thing? Let me reword this: Intel is offering to sell their laptop to extremely poor people for less than what they cost. If they are doing this to gain market share only to raise prices later, then all the OLPC (or any other competitor) has to do is start making them cheaper than Intel at that point (ostensibly prices would be cheaper for the same components in the future). Simple economics says that this would be benefit the people buying the laptops, but my guess is that you hate to see a BIG corporation getting the glory for perfoming the charity.
Another point: Let's just say that Intel does this "unfair undercutting" for 5-10 years, which in a developing nation is not a long time. The kids who are 10-18 years old (I imagine the ones who would use these the most) are now in the range of 15-28. I wonder if any of them would possibly now be benefiting their local economy, possibly working to develop their own cheap laptop.
I think the best point was made in an earlier post, that this is for charity, so who cares who is doing it?
Odd. I've had computers in my room for so long, I actually sleep better with the slight hum. Maybe it's learned habit, as my parents can't sleep with out a floor fan running in the room.
I've been having IE prompt me to run ActiveX controls since IE5 came out. And it's not THAT big of a deal to click 'Cancel' on a site that I don't approve of.
Because most of the people who are sharing these files either/both:
a) don't know that they are sharing the files. My sister didn't know that when she downloaded a file, it is automatically shared; same with my girlfriend. I have a feeling this is the case most of the time.
b) don't know that the RIAA are taking users to court. Again, my sister and girlfriend didn't know this. If 60,000,000 Americans(or parents of them) knew that they were possible targets for litigation, they might just phone up their state/federal representatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Haha, funny... But actually, that is not theft either. It's criminal counterfeit.
Again, WRONG.
Theft is depriving someone of their property, preventing its use. Copying does not deprive the original owner of their property or its use.
Theft is naturally unethical (e.g. stealing another animal's food - possibly depriving it of life). Copying is naturally ethical (e.g. most of nature copies copiously, and thrives off of it - ever heard of DNA?).
Modern humans just happened to decide to provide an *artificial* monopoly of law (an unnatural construct) that allows someone to specify who can copy their works. HUGE difference.
How many times do we have to explain that copying something is different than stealing something?
It is incredibly *dangerous* to our culture to have the vernacular polluted in a way that equates a criminal deed to a legally mandated civil disregard.
The title of this article should be changed.
I think a bigger fact missed here is the amount of oil that is used in the production of industrialized food, which is what is making everyone fat.
My guess is that the production and processing of the epic amounts of corn and meat easily use more oil than the marginally extra that is used in lost efficiency of vehicles because of fat people.
If people ate healthier, then we would probably rely less on these industrial processes.
I knew I wanted it ever since I was 14, and at 18 drove to a neighboring state where it was legal to get it: It's a circle on my upper right shoulder blade. Many Greek mathematicians/philosophers considered it a symbol of perfection.
And screw these people who say tattoos suck, it's your body, do with it what you want. It's an art form, of course some people don't get it. But I do agree with those who say that you should think long and hard about what you are getting. Do not do it on a whim.
It's true. I hate programming in C, much less moving down to assembly. On top of that, kernel programming is just not that interesting to me.
Sure, poo-poo PHP and JS. They have their place, and some really interesting stuff is being built with them (especially with PHP >= 5.3, or server-side JS). Quite frankly, I'll program in any language that gives me the tools to *easily* create what I've constructed in my head.
And if something I build happens to run slowly to the point where I have to drop down and code something in C, I'll pay one of you "cranky old men" to do it for me. But most of the time it's just an architectural problem that wouldn't have been created any differently with a different, lower level, language (for example, caching). After all, it's not like I'm crunching the latest numbers that come out of CERN.
Not that I don't value kernel development, trust me, I do.
My biggest problem with this (and most) legislation at the federal level is that The Constitution doesn't allow it. These matters were meant to be left up to the states. If each and every one of the 50 states passed this separately, I would have considerably less issue with it.
Assuming you have one, does the multi-touch trackpad in your setup work?
turn it on?
Seriously? You could control it by deleting it if it got out of hand.
In my opinion, having it enter a virtual world posing as a real person would definitely prove whether or not it has the AI that it does, evil AI or not.
The more likely explanation is that this "evil" AI only works within a very limited construct of creator-controlled existence.
You gotta love how a single word "bullshit" response gets modded "Insightful".
If you are also utilizing SQL Server (2005/2008), one option would be Service Broker, as it has guaranteed message delivery. And as long as at least one of the endpoints is using the Standard Edition or better, the rest can use the free express version.
Generally, I would agree with you. Cutting useless government programs is a good thing (though, judging by your example, we'd probably have very different ideas of what to cut). Based on that assumption, I think you have to look at the merit of the project as a basis for implementation, and not just whether or not it can be paid for. The question (as many other posts have hit on) is whether pouring more tax dollars, where ever they come from, into colleges is worth it. Some would see that the colleges raise tuition in response to the "free" money as evidence that it doesn't work, and that just hurts the people that pay for college on their own. To me, that doesn't seem very fair.
"Free" is probably the most improperly used word in modern vocabulary. There are so few things in life that are actually "free". It costs somebody something. I would prefer to call this "tax-subsidized education" (an accurately descriptive name), but then the beneficiaries would feel as though people have pity for them instead of thinking this benefit comes out of thin air.
Would you be satisfied with a new release every month? Maybe you should check out their 64-bit FireGL driver release page:
p revious-linux64.html
http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/linux64/radeon
297.624054 lbs exactly. http://www.google.com/search?q=135kg+in+pounds
So, you're saying that Intel selling these laptops below what they cost is a bad thing? Let me reword this: Intel is offering to sell their laptop to extremely poor people for less than what they cost. If they are doing this to gain market share only to raise prices later, then all the OLPC (or any other competitor) has to do is start making them cheaper than Intel at that point (ostensibly prices would be cheaper for the same components in the future). Simple economics says that this would be benefit the people buying the laptops, but my guess is that you hate to see a BIG corporation getting the glory for perfoming the charity.
Another point: Let's just say that Intel does this "unfair undercutting" for 5-10 years, which in a developing nation is not a long time. The kids who are 10-18 years old (I imagine the ones who would use these the most) are now in the range of 15-28. I wonder if any of them would possibly now be benefiting their local economy, possibly working to develop their own cheap laptop.
I think the best point was made in an earlier post, that this is for charity, so who cares who is doing it?
I use active desktop(on my Windows machine) and use it to access a simple page on my webserver, and voila, a to-do list.
If I need, I can even access it at work, on the road, etc...
Odd. I've had computers in my room for so long, I actually sleep better with the slight hum. Maybe it's learned habit, as my parents can't sleep with out a floor fan running in the room.
I've been having IE prompt me to run ActiveX controls since IE5 came out. And it's not THAT big of a deal to click 'Cancel' on a site that I don't approve of.
Because most of the people who are sharing these files either/both:
a) don't know that they are sharing the files. My sister didn't know that when she downloaded a file, it is automatically shared; same with my girlfriend. I have a feeling this is the case most of the time.
b) don't know that the RIAA are taking users to court. Again, my sister and girlfriend didn't know this. If 60,000,000 Americans(or parents of them) knew that they were possible targets for litigation, they might just phone up their state/federal representatives.
eh. Just a thought.