Even if you are always adamant that "megabyte means 1024 bytes" there will always be a worry about whether the person you're talking to is thinking in the same terms.
Absolutely! I think that "megabyte means 1048576 bytes", so there's an immediate possibility of error right there!
relaxzoolander's own page (currently top) is referenced by this nigritude ultramarine site; indeed he posted nigritude ultramarine on that page linking to his own site.
For this linking nigritude ultramarine site to win would be a divine [in]justice, indeed!
Ps. I don't usually post stuff like this, but for nigritude ultramarine, I thought that I'd make an exception.
XimianRed Carpet is the way to go, if you're using Red Hat or SuZE.
If you mean just the original installation, download the ISOs (this one's Red Hat Fedora, but you can Google for another) using bittorrent (I use Azureus). I believe that the Knoppix Live CD distro has its own installer.
There is a cost to the British of having the BBC charge: we no longer get to call the tune. Making money wherever possible isn't always the best policy.
It's only costing us Brits if it means that we get less programming, ie. if it costs. See here:
Because the notion of "fairness" is highly subjective, free riding is usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to Pareto inefficiency.
The inefficiency here would be that insufficient material that would be of interest to those who live overseas would be produced, but since the BBC is meant to produce for the British market in the first instance, it's hard to see why that's much of a problem.
So what remains is the cost in bandwidth. The answer to that is easy: put them on bittorrent, or have them mirrored. Even if they aren't mirrored, the cost to the BBC cannot be a lot, and is probably more than made up in awareness of the BBC brandname.
There is a cost to the British of having the BBC charge: we no longer get to call the tune. Making money wherever possible isn't always the best policy.
've found that the inherent problem in communism lie in scale. A village can subsist as a commune, as African tribes, an indeed some places in America even. A country, however can not. As a commune grows past the ability for everybody to recognize every other person, the free rider problem grows geometrically. More people assume they can get away with doing less and taking more without their neighbors retalliating, resulting in a tragedy of the commons type scenario. The fact that people will always seek to maximise their personal utility is, in fact, a cornerstone of economics.
Because the notion of "fairness" is highly subjective, free riding is usually only considered to be an economic "problem" when it leads to
Pareto inefficiency.
This is relevent when dealing with issues of flie-sharing; naturally bandwidth per se is more straightforward.
Moral feeling (or lack thereof) is precisely what I was responding to when the poster claimed there was no basis for creating an artificial scarcity. At the very least, it's the law, provided for in the US constitution, to guarentee exclusive rights to make copies.
Okay, I'll take that back: there is a basis, however, it appears that this basis turns out to be ill-founded in practice. Moral feeling isn't sufficient justification for either side.
It is really, really amazing to what length people will go thru - the paper you link to is yet another one - to rationalize the simple fact that they are breaking a law. Period.
I agree that breaking the law is, in general, wrong, and that really one should seek to change the law rather than breaking it, but that requires that one first argues against the law, and you're arguing that data that undermines the justification behind a law should be rejected/ignored because it encourages law-breaking. How do you suggest acting to change a law in such circumstances?
If someone could, as you point out, make even more $$$ by allowing free trading and publicity etc amongst friends, then they are free to publish it in that form. However they also have an option to protect it, and if that causes them, as per your paper, to loose cash, they have made a bad business decision.
I agree that that is the case, and indeed I do not believe that the economics of a different copyright regieme would be the same, but if as much money as ever is going to artists, and is indeed going to more of them (as the channels of advertising and information are no longer so restricted), is appears to me to be difficult to justify restricting the rights of the purchasers. There is more than one set of rights here, and the rights that we choose to recognise surely depends on our assessment of what will generate the greatest overall benefit.
We have already decided that the principle of copyright is not absolute when we have chosen to allow for fair use. That is: there are restrictions upon which rights that you can lose through contact, just as one cannot contract into slavery.
In the final analysis, it's the content owners choice whether to put DRM on it or set it free. It is not a consumers choice to circumvent the owners DRM against their wishes, no matter how much extra moolah it makes the owners, or what other self rationalization for violating those right you happen to cook up at the moment (and they come up with more every day)
I disagree. DRM should only be protected in law from reverse-engineering if it is beneficial to the population for it to be so. We don't protect against reverse-engineering in other contexts, so this is not a case of natural law.
Additionally, there are more rights involved than those of the content providers. The provider's right in law to have their DRM protected from reverse engineering is the restriction of the owner's right to reverse engineer.
The artificial scarcity, which is very true, is how you pay for the cost or production. This is mere rationalization of grubbing free stuph pure and simple. Look at the big picture for a change instead of just telling yourself it's ok to rip. A movie company has to break even. Nobody is going to sink $100 million into the production of a movie if they're just going to sell one lousy $25 copy and everybody else gets free copies of that one purchase distributed by the friends network.
I understand the reasoning, only that the data do not back up this theory. You can't win economic arguments through moral feeling.
Yes this article does bolster file-sharers, but you're neglecting any data that doesn't support the conclusion that you've reached in advance. Worse, in fact, data that disaggrees with your conclusion is "rationalization of grubbing free stuph...". This is no way to filter truth from falsehood. If the argument holds, it's not only rationalisation, but a positive justification.
In terms of the argument that you put forth, you're neglecting the advertising benefits of propogated works, or else having your song played on radio would be really really bad. In truth, you're missing the big picture that economics is not just about maximising profit from each transaction, but also about maximising the number of those transactions.
For the record, I do think that it's okay to rip, but I also believe in spending as much money as ever buying complete works. In particular, I believe that some free downloads plus $25 spent four times over and greater exposure for art is better than $100 spent once, and only access to mass-marketted works.
Lord all mighty... this got old many moons ago. "I make copies of music/movies i've purchased outright". Alright... maybe you do mr/mrs oneinamillion. Dance around the bush all you want, there really is an issue of PIRATING out there. One which you are defending no matter how eliquently you word it. Blind extremes to either side of an argument are never good.
I don't think that anyone doubts that pirating is prevalent; what is in doubt is the cost to the copyright owner. How do you defend such artifical scarcity?
May I second your comment about blind extremes, though.
Gyros will not be potent enough to stabilise the space-station, rather they provide a point of reference by which the station can be stabilised. How can you stabilise the station without knowing what "stable" is?
Additionally, even given that gyros were being used for their angular inertia, a gyro kicks at right-angles to the twist applied to it (take the cross product of the spin axis and the axis of the applied rotation), so they're not very useful out in space in this regard. On the ground, it is the point of contact with the ground that provides a fulcrum to lend the gyro stability.
Here is a case in point: The NASA Gravity Probe. You can clearly see here how the 'scopes are being used as a point of reference. Naturally, this is a highly specialised use, but it is indicative.
Gyros are pretty damn critical, or else this wouldn't be news.
Actually, you're wrong. Facts are observations pure and simple; the scientific method is a means to fitting explanations to those observations. Truth is more than fact in the same way that a theory is more than fact. Naturally a given theory might be wrong, but contrarily to the religious approach of truth through dogma or faith, the scientific method allows theories that are contradicted by experience to be overthrown.
Without science, we are inclined to think that things are the way they are because of their history rather than because of their structure, and history induces terrible bias: You don't get truth in the sense of having an understanding of any predictive value, you get simple self-justification.
Also as someone I remember posting in my journal can I give you a specific invitation to participate in a survey I'm conducting? Details are in the link in the sig.
Hang on, I'll have a look. I felt quite exhausted after that last marathon, so I'll try not to say too much this time!
Although it looked like it, I wasn't trying to get the last word in. I was simply tired, hence the delay.
Re:KDE, Mozilla Firefox, TuxPaint, TuxRacer ...
on
A Babe in Tuxland
·
· Score: 1
On her desktop, she has Mozilla Firefox set to go to BBC CBeebies - appropriate content for pre-school and you can't 'escape' the site, since all links are internal. She also enjoys using TuxPaint to draw pictures for us.
No good, I'm afraid. You can click the BBCi icon in the corner. Time to build a firewall?
Kafka couldn't have come up with better folks: "Little girl, you're too young to be able to consent to sex, so those pictures you took of yourself are pictures of a child, and you kept those pictures of yourself, so that's possession of kiddie porn.
"But young lady, you're old enough to know better, so we intend to try and convict you as an adult -- and force you to register as a sex offender -- as a kiddie pornographer, and child molester, no less -- for the rest of your life."
When the law is this insane, it's easy to miss an important fact: the law on child porn is intended to protect children; prosecuting a child for possession and transmission of images of herself as child (rather than generalised) pornography is clearly bad faith on the part of the prosecution.
The action that would be consistent with the intention behind the law would be to offer the child help and an escape from pornography.
Does it make any sense to you that the group who blasted trains in Madrid to protest support for the American invasion in Iraq, would then turn around and support Bush, who actually sent most of the troops into Iraq? I think they're using reverse pychology on you, and I hope you don't actually believe it.
I don't expect these people to make sense, but their reasoning:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
Looks like class A moronic terrorist reasoning to me. Like any good cultist, terrorists want good enemies; how else can they engage in a meaningful Jihad ("struggle")?
Maybe they are trying reverse psychology, or even double-reverse. Who knows? I suggest that people don't allow the issue of who terrorists would vote for to influence their vote one way or the other. It is not the terrorist's business who they vote for.
Pinochet carried out a massive programme of privatisation. Does that mean that privatisation is wrong?
I'm not American BTW, so I couldn't vote for Bush if I wanted to.
If Americans feel that it's wrong to gamble, surely they can choose not to. America has no more right to dictate to it's countrymen about their gambling policy than other countries have to dictate America's policy.
Reverse the logic, and America's government is still in a pickle.
Slashdot Mirror
relaxzoolander's own page (currently top) is referenced by this nigritude ultramarine site; indeed he posted nigritude ultramarine on that page linking to his own site.
For this linking nigritude ultramarine site to win would be a divine [in]justice, indeed!
Ps. I don't usually post stuff like this, but for nigritude ultramarine, I thought that I'd make an exception.
What you're saying renders Microsoft's actions with regard to the discussion of open source in developing countries especially egregious.
If you mean just the original installation, download the ISOs (this one's Red Hat Fedora, but you can Google for another) using bittorrent (I use Azureus). I believe that the Knoppix Live CD distro has its own installer.
Their advertising doesn't seem to engender the greatest confidence, either. The easily offended should turn images off [standard porn buttons].
So what remains is the cost in bandwidth. The answer to that is easy: put them on bittorrent, or have them mirrored. Even if they aren't mirrored, the cost to the BBC cannot be a lot, and is probably more than made up in awareness of the BBC brandname.
There is a cost to the British of having the BBC charge: we no longer get to call the tune. Making money wherever possible isn't always the best policy.
We have already decided that the principle of copyright is not absolute when we have chosen to allow for fair use. That is: there are restrictions upon which rights that you can lose through contact, just as one cannot contract into slavery.
I disagree. DRM should only be protected in law from reverse-engineering if it is beneficial to the population for it to be so. We don't protect against reverse-engineering in other contexts, so this is not a case of natural law.Additionally, there are more rights involved than those of the content providers. The provider's right in law to have their DRM protected from reverse engineering is the restriction of the owner's right to reverse engineer.
Yes this article does bolster file-sharers, but you're neglecting any data that doesn't support the conclusion that you've reached in advance. Worse, in fact, data that disaggrees with your conclusion is "rationalization of grubbing free stuph...". This is no way to filter truth from falsehood. If the argument holds, it's not only rationalisation, but a positive justification.
In terms of the argument that you put forth, you're neglecting the advertising benefits of propogated works, or else having your song played on radio would be really really bad. In truth, you're missing the big picture that economics is not just about maximising profit from each transaction, but also about maximising the number of those transactions.
For the record, I do think that it's okay to rip, but I also believe in spending as much money as ever buying complete works. In particular, I believe that some free downloads plus $25 spent four times over and greater exposure for art is better than $100 spent once, and only access to mass-marketted works.
missing link
The Register had something or two to say about D-flat.
Additionally, even given that gyros were being used for their angular inertia, a gyro kicks at right-angles to the twist applied to it (take the cross product of the spin axis and the axis of the applied rotation), so they're not very useful out in space in this regard. On the ground, it is the point of contact with the ground that provides a fulcrum to lend the gyro stability.
Here is a case in point: The NASA Gravity Probe. You can clearly see here how the 'scopes are being used as a point of reference. Naturally, this is a highly specialised use, but it is indicative.
Gyros are pretty damn critical, or else this wouldn't be news.
99.97% is a very good hit rate! I'm impressed. Do you work with word-clusters at well as individual words?
Without science, we are inclined to think that things are the way they are because of their history rather than because of their structure, and history induces terrible bias: You don't get truth in the sense of having an understanding of any predictive value, you get simple self-justification.
As a side-question, have you considered using Markov Chains?
Although it looked like it, I wasn't trying to get the last word in. I was simply tired, hence the delay.
Of course, once one knows the structure of magic, the score is 1:1.
The action that would be consistent with the intention behind the law would be to offer the child help and an escape from pornography.
Maybe they are trying reverse psychology, or even double-reverse. Who knows? I suggest that people don't allow the issue of who terrorists would vote for to influence their vote one way or the other. It is not the terrorist's business who they vote for.
Pinochet carried out a massive programme of privatisation. Does that mean that privatisation is wrong?
I'm not American BTW, so I couldn't vote for Bush if I wanted to.
Who Osama bin Laden would vote for.
Who Osama bin Laden would vote for. Link pinched from here.
Reverse the logic, and America's government is still in a pickle.