That's a nice theory. Too bad the chinese don't realize that as they become wealthier, their labor costs will rise, eventually causing US companies to move elsewhere for cheap production. By then it will be too late, and they will find that well-off Chinese are not willing to work for a pittance in factories, they will have no choice but to move their production to poorer countries as well. Moreover, they will be surprised to find that people who no longer have to worry about survival begin to worry about other things, like worker rights or government representation or entertainment. Sadly, this will be the demise of their once spectacular authoritarian government.
I think the parent wasn't referring to a third party, but to no parties at all. You should know that the "The US political system" was not designed as such at all. The constitution makes no mention of political parties, and our first president was strongly against political parties.
I'd like to know how you'd propose we change our election process, seeing as it not particularly different from your own. In this case, the problem is the same as the problem you will find in any democracy. People don't want to think for themselves and they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. As a result, most simply find the nearest bandwagon, and hitch themselves to it. This problem certainly (as you point out) exists in Europe as well.
So the solution is not a revision of the election process, since the election process is not the problem. The solution is to educate the public and encourage people to understand that it is their DUTY to be informed voters. Of course, most people don't want to accept any responsibility at all, but I think if people could be made to understand that they'd be a lot better off in the long run by doing this, maybe enough of them would be willing that it would really improve the situation.
"The patriot act is nothing more than a collection of unconstitutional provisions that those with the power have wanted to pass for a long time."
That's a good point. Why is it that so many of the people who run for elected office seem to want the government to be all powerful? It seems to me that if the past is any indicator, the government just plain does a horrible job whenever it tries to do anything. I wish more Americans would realize this so that the government would stop getting bigger and more intrusive.
I don't know, isn't that the difference between entry level software and pro software. I mean, iMovie is for the hobbyist and Final Cut Pro is for the professional. If you're just cropping some images and doing some drop-shadows, you hardly need photoshop.
I remember back when I was starting out in 3D graphics I used to use Ray Dream for modeling, and KPT Bryce (now Corel Bryce) for landscapes. I didn't really need Pro quality application. Now I use Cinema 4D (which I paid quite a bit for) since I've learned more about it and can actually use all the features.
Is there an entry level program that might meet your needs? I'm sure some of them have a good interface, and all the features you need. I myself use GIMP at home. I'm pretty skillful with graphics and I like having all the extra features. Mostly I just use Photoshop on the school computers (my student fees at work) since, as you say, the interface is a lot better and it's a bit faster.
Anyway, if you don't need pro software, use entry level software. Pirating photoshop at least denies Adobe the possibility of selling you an entry level program. If you aren't willing to buy any software for that purpose, use GIMP, don't pirate.
I've never pirated software, and I'm a college student, but then again I'm also mac user. Sometimes I wonder if mac users spend more on software because they're willing to spend more, or just because they can't pirate from any of their friends.
That's hardly a reasonable conclusion to reach. There were hardly any Jewish scientists on the Manhattan Project at all. Einstein himself only wrote a statement emphasizing the importance of the project so that it could get funding, none of his theories had any part in it. Einstein developed theories about relativity and quantum mechanics, not nuclear fission. The main reason that Germany never developed the bomb was that Heisenberg himself kept insisting to Hitler that the project was non viable. He actually arranged a meeting with an American scientist during which he showed the scientist a diagram of an atomic bomb in an effort to show that Germany would not develop one. In fact, the german "Bomb" project was actually called the commission on uranium, since their purpose was so ambiguous at the time.
It is likely that the reason Germany never developed the bomb was because Heisenberg thought the bomb was so horrible it should never be built. It's too bad American scientists didn't think the same way, or we might not suffer from the anti-nuclear sentiment which prevents us from using nuclear power today.
I've always figured that it was up to the record labels how they distributed music. I don't see how Fair Rights and the First Amendment really come into play here. Doesn't the content owner have the right to dictate how that content is bought and sold. After all, music is not an essential service, and people can simply choose not to buy it if they don't agree with how it's being distributed. People don't need to by from the iTunes Music store, if they want music to play on a non-Apple mp3 player, they should just buy it elsewhere.
No, my position was merely that Apple is not anti-opensource, and that the people who wrote Fair Play should've and likely did anticipate this response form Apple. Apple should do everything in their power to prevent the breaking of their DRM because their contracts with record labels obligates them to do so. This is not to say that I support DRM, but I do support online music, and I don't think it's fair for people to jeopardize my ability to buy online music. If people want to use their music on players other than the iPod, I think they should just buy unprotected music CD's.
Some how, I think the Play Fair guys should have had some inkling in advance that this was going to happen. Or do you seriously think Apple shouldn't do anything about people breaking their DRM scheme? After all, it is the only way they could get labels to sign on to the iTunes music store.
In light os some of the other things Apple has done regarding open source, I don't think it's reasonable to say that this makes them against open source.
If someone wrote an open source computer virus for the mac, would you still cry foul when apple tries to shut them down? Just because something's open source, doesn't make it good.
But there are still reactions that occur at decent rates even at lower temperatures (which happen instantaneously at earth temperatures) so cold on it's own is not necessarily prohibitive to life. Besides, our own bodies rely on reactions which occur prohibitively slowly. We use proteins to catalyze these reactions, causing them to occur much more quickly. Just because life as we know it requires polar solvents does not mean that life elsewhere would. I't difficult to guess what form such life would take, but as long as the energy is there the possibility exists.
Speaking of that, I could never figure out why scientists would assume such a thing. Certainly there fluids, materials and chemical reactions which can result in life like properties, but exist at very low temperatures. Why do people always assume that you need an earth like environment for life to exist. Maybe all the life-forms we've seen require an earth like environment because we've only seen life-forms on earth. I think that scientists who believe that there's no way life could exist on Titan, simply lack imagination.
Certainly it is unlikely that life exists on Titan, and it is only reasonable that we assume there is none until we have proof to the contrary, but the possibility is still there.
"which do you think is the quickest easiest way to get things done?"
I think this is the exact problem I'm talking about. People want quick and easy, they don't care about right.
Let me ask you. Which is the best way to get things done? Lets think about some other problems:
Americans waste a lot of water watering unnecessary lawns.
Americans waste millions of barrels of petroleum each day because they don't want to walk.
Americans generate millions of tons of garbage each year that could be reused of recycled.
Americans continue to support corporations which pollute the environment.
Now, your solution solves one problem until corporations figure out a way around the silly law. My solution solves all these problems and many more permanently.
So you're saying that MSFT is responsible for crackers maliciously releasing viruses onto the internet? That's an interesting view to take.
I guess this is similar to the view that Bush is responsible for Sept. 11 because he didn't do enough to stop it. I mean, if you're not happy with his job performance, just don't vote for him. He shouldn't be charged with 3000 counts of murder, that's all I'm saying.
So basically your argument is that people aren't responsible enough to make good decisions on their own, so the government has to decide for them. Well, my response is this:
People need to accept responsibility for their own actions. Democracy is founded on the notion that individuals will inform themselves about the issues and make well-reasoned and informed decisions. This does not only apply to electing officials or voting on ordinances, it applies to every facet of out lives. Living in a capitalist economy means that it is our individual responsibility to make good decisions for ourselves.
The difference between our government and economy and an authoritarian one is that the people have the power and the accountability. Every lawsuit we bring along these lines takes power and responsibility out of our hands and puts it in the hands of our elected officials.
Do you really want the government regulate more of your moral values? Do you want the government to dictate more of your economic activity? Because if you do, you should support lawsuits like these which say that people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Okay, MSFT is a monopoly, sure. But the fact is, there's nothing keeping most people from switching to another browser/OS/Office-Suite. You know what that means? People are choosing to use MSFT software despite the fact that they have a choice. Why? Probably because the don't realize that they have a choice.
Don't get me wrong, MSFT has done some pretty fucked up things and they should pay, but in this case I jut don't think there's reason to sue. I think it'd hurt MSFT more if people just quit using IE. I'm glad someone's finally speaking out and saying "hey, this shit's really insecure", maybe more people will stop using IE now.
I don't know if it's fair to draw a connection between loss of life and physical injury to loss of productivity and inconvenience. I think that's probably taking lawsuits too far.
I mean, sure if people are dying because of this by all means sue. But suing over downtime and inconvenience as in this case would be like suing an architect because a thief broke into your house and stole all you valuables. If you didn't want that to happen, you should've gotten yourself a more secure house.
No, avoiding certain purchases really does go that far, or do you think companies will keep making cheep clothes despite the fact no one buys them? That sounds like pretty bad business to me.
The only reason everyone uses cheap labour is because price is all most purchasers care about. If shoppers would even think about child labour, they would stop buying these clothes. The problem isn't that evil corporations are forcing people to buy these clothes, it's that thoughtless people are so apathetic they don't care. The people that do care would rather just sit around and complain about it than educate the public and make good purchasing decisions. You would not believe how many friends I have who complain about how Wal-Mart does all these horrible things, but then buy just about everything from those same stores.
This is what people don't understand about capitalism. If you don't like the product, you don't have to sue, just stop using the damn product.
I really hate this attitude, "the man keeps us down, so lets sue." It makes absolutely no sense at all. Corporation uses child labour to make affordable products, sue them. Heaven forbid you should accept responsibility for it and stop buying their low-quality products. MSFT sells software for too much money, sue them, don't simply use something else. It's no wonder we have so much unnecessary litigation in this country.
I can't believe that the people on that website are real. They claim that NASA use RTG's and RHU's to cover up military plutonium launches. Where do they expect these probes to get power from?
I mean, seriously, I've seen some pretty crazy theories in my time, but this one takes the cake. Why would the military use NASA to cover up it's activities, how would this even work. Wouldn't the military still have to cover up their activities regardless of what NASA does?
Maybe you could design a structure atop the mobile base capable of holding several meters of regolith. It wouldn't need to be all that sturdy since things on the moon don't weigh that much, and you could fill it up once you got there, so it'd be inexpensive.
How long do you think the fibers in rope are? I can guarantee that that 50 ft cotton rope does not have 50 ft long fibers. The Vanderwaals forces between the individual fibers, when acting over the whole length of the fibers, holds them together more strongly than the individual carbon-carbon bonds would. There is no reason to explore chemically bonding the tubes.
The epoxy is only to ensure that the weight is distributed evenly across all the fibers. The vast majority of the tension will be along the elevator vertically, the epoxy will only have to be strong enough to keep the fibers from coming apart horizontally.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a nice theory. Too bad the chinese don't realize that as they become wealthier, their labor costs will rise, eventually causing US companies to move elsewhere for cheap production. By then it will be too late, and they will find that well-off Chinese are not willing to work for a pittance in factories, they will have no choice but to move their production to poorer countries as well. Moreover, they will be surprised to find that people who no longer have to worry about survival begin to worry about other things, like worker rights or government representation or entertainment. Sadly, this will be the demise of their once spectacular authoritarian government.
I think the parent wasn't referring to a third party, but to no parties at all. You should know that the "The US political system" was not designed as such at all. The constitution makes no mention of political parties, and our first president was strongly against political parties.
I'd like to know how you'd propose we change our election process, seeing as it not particularly different from your own. In this case, the problem is the same as the problem you will find in any democracy. People don't want to think for themselves and they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. As a result, most simply find the nearest bandwagon, and hitch themselves to it. This problem certainly (as you point out) exists in Europe as well.
So the solution is not a revision of the election process, since the election process is not the problem. The solution is to educate the public and encourage people to understand that it is their DUTY to be informed voters. Of course, most people don't want to accept any responsibility at all, but I think if people could be made to understand that they'd be a lot better off in the long run by doing this, maybe enough of them would be willing that it would really improve the situation.
"The patriot act is nothing more than a collection of unconstitutional provisions that those with the power have wanted to pass for a long time."
That's a good point. Why is it that so many of the people who run for elected office seem to want the government to be all powerful? It seems to me that if the past is any indicator, the government just plain does a horrible job whenever it tries to do anything. I wish more Americans would realize this so that the government would stop getting bigger and more intrusive.
"factor in the third-world were people may be lucky to make $1000 a year"
It's no wonder they can't afford the software, they already spent at least half their annual income on a computer.
I don't know, isn't that the difference between entry level software and pro software. I mean, iMovie is for the hobbyist and Final Cut Pro is for the professional. If you're just cropping some images and doing some drop-shadows, you hardly need photoshop.
I remember back when I was starting out in 3D graphics I used to use Ray Dream for modeling, and KPT Bryce (now Corel Bryce) for landscapes. I didn't really need Pro quality application. Now I use Cinema 4D (which I paid quite a bit for) since I've learned more about it and can actually use all the features.
Is there an entry level program that might meet your needs? I'm sure some of them have a good interface, and all the features you need. I myself use GIMP at home. I'm pretty skillful with graphics and I like having all the extra features. Mostly I just use Photoshop on the school computers (my student fees at work) since, as you say, the interface is a lot better and it's a bit faster.
Anyway, if you don't need pro software, use entry level software. Pirating photoshop at least denies Adobe the possibility of selling you an entry level program. If you aren't willing to buy any software for that purpose, use GIMP, don't pirate.
I've never pirated software, and I'm a college student, but then again I'm also mac user. Sometimes I wonder if mac users spend more on software because they're willing to spend more, or just because they can't pirate from any of their friends.
That's hardly a reasonable conclusion to reach. There were hardly any Jewish scientists on the Manhattan Project at all. Einstein himself only wrote a statement emphasizing the importance of the project so that it could get funding, none of his theories had any part in it. Einstein developed theories about relativity and quantum mechanics, not nuclear fission. The main reason that Germany never developed the bomb was that Heisenberg himself kept insisting to Hitler that the project was non viable. He actually arranged a meeting with an American scientist during which he showed the scientist a diagram of an atomic bomb in an effort to show that Germany would not develop one. In fact, the german "Bomb" project was actually called the commission on uranium, since their purpose was so ambiguous at the time.
It is likely that the reason Germany never developed the bomb was because Heisenberg thought the bomb was so horrible it should never be built. It's too bad American scientists didn't think the same way, or we might not suffer from the anti-nuclear sentiment which prevents us from using nuclear power today.
I've always figured that it was up to the record labels how they distributed music. I don't see how Fair Rights and the First Amendment really come into play here. Doesn't the content owner have the right to dictate how that content is bought and sold. After all, music is not an essential service, and people can simply choose not to buy it if they don't agree with how it's being distributed. People don't need to by from the iTunes Music store, if they want music to play on a non-Apple mp3 player, they should just buy it elsewhere.
No, my position was merely that Apple is not anti-opensource, and that the people who wrote Fair Play should've and likely did anticipate this response form Apple. Apple should do everything in their power to prevent the breaking of their DRM because their contracts with record labels obligates them to do so. This is not to say that I support DRM, but I do support online music, and I don't think it's fair for people to jeopardize my ability to buy online music. If people want to use their music on players other than the iPod, I think they should just buy unprotected music CD's.
Some how, I think the Play Fair guys should have had some inkling in advance that this was going to happen. Or do you seriously think Apple shouldn't do anything about people breaking their DRM scheme? After all, it is the only way they could get labels to sign on to the iTunes music store.
In light os some of the other things Apple has done regarding open source, I don't think it's reasonable to say that this makes them against open source.
If someone wrote an open source computer virus for the mac, would you still cry foul when apple tries to shut them down? Just because something's open source, doesn't make it good.
Why did it get modded redundant? Is there a comment in this thread somewhere that says the same thing? I can't find any.
But there are still reactions that occur at decent rates even at lower temperatures (which happen instantaneously at earth temperatures) so cold on it's own is not necessarily prohibitive to life. Besides, our own bodies rely on reactions which occur prohibitively slowly. We use proteins to catalyze these reactions, causing them to occur much more quickly. Just because life as we know it requires polar solvents does not mean that life elsewhere would. I't difficult to guess what form such life would take, but as long as the energy is there the possibility exists.
Speaking of that, I could never figure out why scientists would assume such a thing. Certainly there fluids, materials and chemical reactions which can result in life like properties, but exist at very low temperatures. Why do people always assume that you need an earth like environment for life to exist. Maybe all the life-forms we've seen require an earth like environment because we've only seen life-forms on earth. I think that scientists who believe that there's no way life could exist on Titan, simply lack imagination.
Certainly it is unlikely that life exists on Titan, and it is only reasonable that we assume there is none until we have proof to the contrary, but the possibility is still there.
Exactly, the problem is ignorance and stupidity. People need to be better educated.
"which do you think is the quickest easiest way to get things done?"
I think this is the exact problem I'm talking about. People want quick and easy, they don't care about right.
Let me ask you. Which is the best way to get things done? Lets think about some other problems:
Americans waste a lot of water watering unnecessary lawns.
Americans waste millions of barrels of petroleum each day because they don't want to walk.
Americans generate millions of tons of garbage each year that could be reused of recycled.
Americans continue to support corporations which pollute the environment.
Now, your solution solves one problem until corporations figure out a way around the silly law. My solution solves all these problems and many more permanently.
Which do you think is better now?
So you're saying that MSFT is responsible for crackers maliciously releasing viruses onto the internet? That's an interesting view to take.
I guess this is similar to the view that Bush is responsible for Sept. 11 because he didn't do enough to stop it. I mean, if you're not happy with his job performance, just don't vote for him. He shouldn't be charged with 3000 counts of murder, that's all I'm saying.
So basically your argument is that people aren't responsible enough to make good decisions on their own, so the government has to decide for them. Well, my response is this:
People need to accept responsibility for their own actions. Democracy is founded on the notion that individuals will inform themselves about the issues and make well-reasoned and informed decisions. This does not only apply to electing officials or voting on ordinances, it applies to every facet of out lives. Living in a capitalist economy means that it is our individual responsibility to make good decisions for ourselves.
The difference between our government and economy and an authoritarian one is that the people have the power and the accountability. Every lawsuit we bring along these lines takes power and responsibility out of our hands and puts it in the hands of our elected officials.
Do you really want the government regulate more of your moral values? Do you want the government to dictate more of your economic activity? Because if you do, you should support lawsuits like these which say that people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Okay, MSFT is a monopoly, sure. But the fact is, there's nothing keeping most people from switching to another browser/OS/Office-Suite. You know what that means? People are choosing to use MSFT software despite the fact that they have a choice. Why? Probably because the don't realize that they have a choice.
Don't get me wrong, MSFT has done some pretty fucked up things and they should pay, but in this case I jut don't think there's reason to sue. I think it'd hurt MSFT more if people just quit using IE. I'm glad someone's finally speaking out and saying "hey, this shit's really insecure", maybe more people will stop using IE now.
I don't know if it's fair to draw a connection between loss of life and physical injury to loss of productivity and inconvenience. I think that's probably taking lawsuits too far.
I mean, sure if people are dying because of this by all means sue. But suing over downtime and inconvenience as in this case would be like suing an architect because a thief broke into your house and stole all you valuables. If you didn't want that to happen, you should've gotten yourself a more secure house.
No, avoiding certain purchases really does go that far, or do you think companies will keep making cheep clothes despite the fact no one buys them? That sounds like pretty bad business to me.
The only reason everyone uses cheap labour is because price is all most purchasers care about. If shoppers would even think about child labour, they would stop buying these clothes. The problem isn't that evil corporations are forcing people to buy these clothes, it's that thoughtless people are so apathetic they don't care. The people that do care would rather just sit around and complain about it than educate the public and make good purchasing decisions. You would not believe how many friends I have who complain about how Wal-Mart does all these horrible things, but then buy just about everything from those same stores.
"Global Class Action Lawsuit against Microsoft"
This is what people don't understand about capitalism. If you don't like the product, you don't have to sue, just stop using the damn product.
I really hate this attitude, "the man keeps us down, so lets sue." It makes absolutely no sense at all. Corporation uses child labour to make affordable products, sue them. Heaven forbid you should accept responsibility for it and stop buying their low-quality products. MSFT sells software for too much money, sue them, don't simply use something else. It's no wonder we have so much unnecessary litigation in this country.
I can't believe that the people on that website are real. They claim that NASA use RTG's and RHU's to cover up military plutonium launches. Where do they expect these probes to get power from?
I mean, seriously, I've seen some pretty crazy theories in my time, but this one takes the cake. Why would the military use NASA to cover up it's activities, how would this even work. Wouldn't the military still have to cover up their activities regardless of what NASA does?
Maybe you could design a structure atop the mobile base capable of holding several meters of regolith. It wouldn't need to be all that sturdy since things on the moon don't weigh that much, and you could fill it up once you got there, so it'd be inexpensive.
How long do you think the fibers in rope are? I can guarantee that that 50 ft cotton rope does not have 50 ft long fibers. The Vanderwaals forces between the individual fibers, when acting over the whole length of the fibers, holds them together more strongly than the individual carbon-carbon bonds would. There is no reason to explore chemically bonding the tubes.
The epoxy is only to ensure that the weight is distributed evenly across all the fibers. The vast majority of the tension will be along the elevator vertically, the epoxy will only have to be strong enough to keep the fibers from coming apart horizontally.