"You just pay the band however much you think the downloads are worth and they'll be happy" I say 0.00, ya think they're still happy? I imagine they've factored in the asshole quotient in their plan.
my current notebook (old fujitsu p7010) has a
10.6" display and with display on medium
brightness the whole computer draws about
11 watts (so says powertop anyway). This is
not a battery friendly display.
There are laws that will protect hospital employees if they haven't done something illegal like give out patient information, or haven't been posting blatant lies about their employer. If they have been honest in their "free speech", then they have protection, and shouldn't be afraid of suddenly not being anonymous.
could you even try to be little more naive...
my figures (http://www.nwmo.ca/adx/asp/adxGetMedia.asp?DocID=195,40,18,1,Documents&MediaID=3086&Filename=Appendix+1+CANDU+Spent+Fuel_NWMO.pdf)
show candu waste is 0.25% fissile plutonium, Pressurized water
reactors (the non-candu standard in one form or another) waste
is 0.59% fissile plutonium.
So, why dump on candu, which outputs half as much plutonium
waste?
what was the price again? When is it shipping?
From the little I've heard the price is going
to significantly higher than early hype indicated,
and now the shipping is "sometime in October".
You won't get two eee's for 399 that's for sure
but wasn't the VC money for CSIRO all from *taxpayers*?
CSIRO should hold patents to prevent corporations from
patenting the tech for themselves, but not to make
a profit.
All the engineers etc were paid to think this up. After
that the invented tech is a public resource. A
govt. agency should not behave like a corporation.
I wonder if you really think that breaking into a gmail
account illegally is always wrong... use your imagination,
what if doing so would save 1 million people from a terrorist
a-bomb. Would you do it? Would it be wrong?
You don't have a *principle* here (I bet). You just are
arguing about the size of the benefit.
We could have some really interesting data back within 15 years and do plenty of new science along the way.
Absolute nonsense. To get data back in 15 years means getting there in
about 10. If we launched today the ship would have to average about.4 lyr / yr which (if my calculations are more or less correct) is
some 432,000,000 km/hr. New Horizons is going to take 10 years to get
just to Pluto and may attain a top speed of around 75,000 km/hr...
Not going to happen
By the way, the original article is similarly absurd (terraforming
Mars in 50 years e.g.)
Disney makes a movie. He (or it) owns the movie. Then
Disney sells me a copy. Now I own the movie too. Why
can't I sell more copies? I didn't deprive Disney of
anything. Disney can still sell copies (and Disney did
not have to sell me a copy). Disney can put a sign up
saying "please don't buy copies from wes33 because we
original artists need the money". People can take heed
of this or not as they see fit.
It was just a clever idea to grant a **temporary**
monopoly to creators to give them some extra incentive.
There is no "right" or "ownership" at issue here - just
the question of granting a temporary monopoly for the
overall good of society.
As for the house analogy, the people who have to give
up their houses no longer have them (unlike Disney).
Also, ever hear of expropriation. We **DO** think it's
ok to take property (with compensation) for the good of
society.
engaging in an activity that is likely to lead to
harm to others... sounds like the kind of thing
we make illegal.
Like driving after drinking.
Or driving while drinking for that matter (but we've
already made that illegal [except maybe in Texas -
used to be afaik that so long as you were under the
limit you *could* drink while driving but I expect
that's changed].
Or, say, dropping bricks out of
a window onto the sidewalk below. Let's say you think
this is fun and you try really hard to *miss* people.
So should that be legal?
Or say taking random rifle
shots into the air at 45 degrees. You're very unlikely
to hit anybody but - fool that I am - I think that
should be illegal too.
Or how about reading a novel
while driving (I've seen people doing that on the
401 in Toronto - mind boggling. They hold the book
on the wheel and glance up and down... until they
reach an engrossing passage)
I think what matters is *how* risky is the behavior
and how serious the consequences. That's an empirical
question.
And, by the way, being black is not engaging in an
activity that might lead to harm to others.
don't need a link: in QFT it is true
that space like separated operators
commute - so no communication; in short,
you can't make what you want happen at
the other end of the "channel" even though
there is a correlation between what is
happening at both ends.
OTH, so far as I know, this condition on
the operators is just "written in" to the
the theory so I think it's definitely
worth testing
perhaps in the long run... when markets collapse due to a
failure to switch over to solar power and the few millions
of us left are huddled in Northern Canada and Siberia
I am - to say the very least - skeptical about
your claim here. I know of no such law in Canada.
What is your source here? Who's going to arrest
me for encrypting my email?
I can't believe that people here are actually condoning breaking the law
You mean, you *don't* condone breaking a bad law?
Your nation
(assuming you are American) has many beautiful stories about
this: Davy Crockett saying "make sure you're right, then go
ahead", or Thoreau, imprisoned for breaking a bad law (as he
saw it) who was visited by his friend Emerson who said: "Thoreau,
what are you doing in jail??!". Thoreau replied: "Emerson, what
are you doing out of jail?".
So do you really find it hard to condone breaking a law? Or are
you a status quo copyright law defender? (out with it man!:) )
My own view (FWIW) is that it's ok to break a bad law, but you
are going to have to face the consequences if caught. But I
*don't* think you have to try and get caught unless you want
to make a special civil disobedience point. And others do not have
to help the defenders of a bad law catch those who break it either.
So, it's ok to break copyright law if it's a bad law, and I happen
to think current copyright law is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
my current notebook (old fujitsu p7010) has a 10.6" display and with display on medium brightness the whole computer draws about 11 watts (so says powertop anyway). This is not a battery friendly display.
could you even try to be little more naive
my figures (http://www.nwmo.ca/adx/asp/adxGetMedia.asp?DocID=195,40,18,1,Documents&MediaID=3086&Filename=Appendix+1+CANDU+Spent+Fuel_NWMO.pdf) show candu waste is 0.25% fissile plutonium, Pressurized water reactors (the non-candu standard in one form or another) waste is 0.59% fissile plutonium.
So, why dump on candu, which outputs half as much plutonium waste?
what was the price again? When is it shipping? From the little I've heard the price is going to significantly higher than early hype indicated, and now the shipping is "sometime in October". You won't get two eee's for 399 that's for sure
I expect powertop would run from the command line, but I don't know for sure ...
but wasn't the VC money for CSIRO all from *taxpayers*?
CSIRO should hold patents to prevent corporations from patenting the tech for themselves, but not to make a profit.
All the engineers etc were paid to think this up. After that the invented tech is a public resource. A govt. agency should not behave like a corporation.
The point of these cameras is not to make people safer, but to make people *feel* safer. Last I heard, the Brits love the things ...
I wonder if you really think that breaking into a gmail account illegally is always wrong ... use your imagination,
what if doing so would save 1 million people from a terrorist
a-bomb. Would you do it? Would it be wrong?
You don't have a *principle* here (I bet). You just are
arguing about the size of the benefit.
you're missing that the press release is aimed at people of presumed intelligence a lot less than yours ... It might work.
Not going to happen
By the way, the original article is similarly absurd (terraforming Mars in 50 years e.g.)
Last I looked Oxford was not in the good 'ol US of A and so I have some doubts about the DMCA having a lot of clout ...
Disney makes a movie. He (or it) owns the movie. Then Disney sells me a copy. Now I own the movie too. Why can't I sell more copies? I didn't deprive Disney of anything. Disney can still sell copies (and Disney did not have to sell me a copy). Disney can put a sign up saying "please don't buy copies from wes33 because we original artists need the money". People can take heed of this or not as they see fit.
It was just a clever idea to grant a **temporary** monopoly to creators to give them some extra incentive. There is no "right" or "ownership" at issue here - just the question of granting a temporary monopoly for the overall good of society.
As for the house analogy, the people who have to give up their houses no longer have them (unlike Disney). Also, ever hear of expropriation. We **DO** think it's ok to take property (with compensation) for the good of society.
engaging in an activity that is likely to lead to harm to others ... sounds like the kind of thing
we make illegal.
... until they
reach an engrossing passage)
Like driving after drinking.
Or driving while drinking for that matter (but we've already made that illegal [except maybe in Texas - used to be afaik that so long as you were under the limit you *could* drink while driving but I expect that's changed].
Or, say, dropping bricks out of a window onto the sidewalk below. Let's say you think this is fun and you try really hard to *miss* people. So should that be legal?
Or say taking random rifle shots into the air at 45 degrees. You're very unlikely to hit anybody but - fool that I am - I think that should be illegal too.
Or how about reading a novel while driving (I've seen people doing that on the 401 in Toronto - mind boggling. They hold the book on the wheel and glance up and down
I think what matters is *how* risky is the behavior and how serious the consequences. That's an empirical question.
And, by the way, being black is not engaging in an activity that might lead to harm to others.
well, try again after you finish the bottle :)
don't need a link: in QFT it is true that space like separated operators commute - so no communication; in short, you can't make what you want happen at the other end of the "channel" even though there is a correlation between what is happening at both ends. OTH, so far as I know, this condition on the operators is just "written in" to the the theory so I think it's definitely worth testing
It just takes a while to ramp up production
perhaps in the long run ... when markets collapse due to a
failure to switch over to solar power and the few millions
of us left are huddled in Northern Canada and Siberia
Yes, if the crime involved was perjury it would be closer :)
Your nation (assuming you are American) has many beautiful stories about this: Davy Crockett saying "make sure you're right, then go ahead", or Thoreau, imprisoned for breaking a bad law (as he saw it) who was visited by his friend Emerson who said: "Thoreau, what are you doing in jail??!". Thoreau replied: "Emerson, what are you doing out of jail?".
So do you really find it hard to condone breaking a law? Or are you a status quo copyright law defender? (out with it man!
My own view (FWIW) is that it's ok to break a bad law, but you are going to have to face the consequences if caught. But I *don't* think you have to try and get caught unless you want to make a special civil disobedience point. And others do not have to help the defenders of a bad law catch those who break it either. So, it's ok to break copyright law if it's a bad law, and I happen to think current copyright law is bad.
lending money at 30% ... great and I bet they
let you kick some orphans on Saturdays too!
oh ... I wouldn't worry about the *military* getting
oil supplies in 2035; I'd worry about the rest of us.