Real-time processing speed is still a concern. Even with *way* more computing power than available decades ago, it still takes a noticeably nonzero amount of time to render a several page LaTeX document. For live document editing, or even re-flowing a webpage when your window size changes, you need a much faster (and consequently cruder-looking) layout algorithm. Now, most document preparation would be much better served by a model like LyX: fast approximate on-screen rendering for editing, with a slow "final polished form" output. However, this means you lose WYSIWYG control over the final output; for the (much rarer than most people seem to think) cases where you actually want this, you're stuck trading off layout quality for computer speed.
It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive.
I'd modify that to "It is contrary to human nature not to be playful." Play is simultaneously competitive and cooperative. Importantly, "winning" in play isn't "for keeps" --- "I'm stronger and faster than you" doesn't translate into "you're my slave bitch for life," or accumulation and leveraging of power over others. In fact, when participants in play are badly mismatched in raw ability, the stronger will typically voluntarily and spontaneously hobble themselves --- not by stopping trying, but in some manner that requires them to do more than their opponents to "win." Opposite to "competition-for-keeps" where the winners get more at the expense of the losers, playfulness tilts the field so everyone can stay in the game, uplifting one another and improving themselves (from whatever level of ability).
Unfortunately, f*cking irritating == attention getting, so by the commutative quality of the equivalency group, they are technically correct, and we are f*cking screwed.
What the heck are you talking about? Best Korea already owns the universe. Except for Greenland. So, obviously, the next step is for Robo-Rodman to conquer Greenland --- no matter what the Buddhist Illuminati try to pull. With the the Wal*Mart pod-people tied up supplying black helicopters to the Federal Reserve, the hyperintelligent Mars rovers won't stand a chance against the Lizard People of New Brunswick. Vote Ron Paul!
Officially declared "we annex this territory"? Probably not since '73. But settlements, seizing water sources, tearing down olive orchards, building apartheid walls, changing the real situation on the ground: daily. I'm less concerned by "official" territorial boundaries (imaginary lines on a map), than the physical reality "on the ground." Imaginary lines on a map can be re-drawn at any time, and don't hurt anyone; but when people are expelled from their homes, lose access to vital resources, and are replaced by new "innocent civilian" settlers, the real harm is done (and far harder to justly reverse).
Hard to tell exactly what China's politburo will do (ever since Mao died, no one's been answering calls on my special red telephone line to Beijing), but I'm not so sure they'd really want NK expanding like that either. China doesn't want US military bases nestled right up against their border (so they're alright with maintaining NK as a big buffer region), but they aren't exactly thrilled about having a big mass of desperate starving poor people about to spill over the border either (China's not particularly short on population right now). Doubling the size of NK (while wiping out anything of value in South Korea) wouldn't particularly benefit China. In fact, if the US were to break off close relations with South Korea (let them develop as an independent non-aligned state, rather than a neo-colonial puppet for Western interests), I wouldn't be surprised if China hastened along the demise of NK, and let South Korea take over as a friendly ally/trading partner.
Huh? Where'd that come from? I'm perfectly fine with China not trampling in to directly help North Korea wage hostilities against the South; I'm happy with South Korea being able to defend its border against aggression. Likewise, I'd be fine with Israel not receiving massive support from its sugar daddy to unilaterally steamroll over Palestine; I'd be fine with Palestine having a bit more firepower to fight back wherever Israel pushes its borders to steal more land/resources.
That their holy book says all infidels must convert or die doesn't give them any moral high ground.
That Israel ignores all the parts of their holy book demanding just treatment of foreigners (leaving only the parts about conquest and oppression and exclusion) nicely levels the moral playing field.
An organization that wants any other group wiped from the face of Earth deserves just that.
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government? Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
Actually, there's no problem if Torres admits to being 100% inspired by PopTarts. Again, Kellogg owns the *trademark* "PopTart," not rights to the shape, size, color, texture, or flavor of frosted toaster pastries. Torres is only in trouble if Kellogg can show he used their trademark (the "PopTart" name or logo) in a manner that risks confusing others into thinking his cat is a PopTart(R)-branded product. Note that competing store-brand frosted toaster pastry manufacturers get away with selling *actual boxes of frosted toaster pastries* that look just like PopTarts, which is fine so long as they don't use the word PopTart on the packaging (or something confusingly similar, up to the discretion of the court --- "PopTorte" would likely be too close, but "Leaping Sugarpouch" would likely be fine).
What could a self-regulating American --- Texan, even! --- business possibly do worse than turrists? Surely, their own self-interests would prevent them from doing anything truly stupid and dangerous; that's why we don't need government regulators breathing down our necks. Are you some sort of commie, trying to spread lies that the Free Market won't keep us perfectly safe from harm?
Plutonium radiothermal generators have excellent energy density but terrible *power density* --- you can get a lot of energy per mass out of them very slowly, but you can't get high power from them (lots of energy in a short time). Great if you want to keep a rover or spacecraft running for decades without swapping out the battery; but useless for a flappy bug robot, which needs an energy source with a high power:weight ratio.
No, the cat is 75% frosted toaster pastry; Kellogg doesn't own rights to the appearance of frosted toaster pastries (note that you can find plenty of store-brand frosted toaster pastries, usually right next to PopTarts on the store shelf). If the Nyan Cat image actually contained the word "PopTart" (or was sold/marketed using the PopTart name) then Kellogg would have a case.
Frosted breakfast toaster pastries aren't an exclusively owned intellectual property. Nyan Cat doesn't have a "Pop Tart (tm)" label on the image; just an image of a food (?) product of which many generic variants are available.
The most popular stuff has DRM --- do you mean like the DRM-free Apple iTunes store? Or Amazon.com's DRM-free MP3's? Or the DRM-free books and CDs you find on store shelves? Or the DRM-free websites you read every day? Yeah, those are all just niche players with no popular impact on the market.
So, DRM can "benefit" the consumer --- so long as you first carefully arrange to artificially set up a problem to "solve" (price of the TV being higher despite the functional and non-functional TVs being *exactly the same* in hardware, with one artificial limitation set). Wow, if we can artificially create a lot more problems, think about how many consumer benefits we could generate by fixing them!
Yes. By attracting further research funding, this fly will likely succeed in spawning a new generation of robo-flies. And, if those continue to succeed in procreating with funding agencies (and even finding new survival niches), we'll eventually have little robo-fly offspring everywhere.
Given the track record of past DRM schemes (100% failure rate), that's a pretty iffy claim. You could also say "DRM could give you a pony that farts solid gold rainbows --- why don't you want DRM?"
But what is stopping them from sharing it with others?
The doctor being a professional. If that fails, regulations and enforcement of those regulations. But, if your doctor is really out to harm you --- you're pretty much screwed anyway. Why not go to a doctor who you trust to do their job appropriately, without you micro-managing their every action?
This is just my own view, but I think that a world that needs ditch diggers should also treat ditch diggers well enough that there would be no a-priori reason for "ditch digging" to not be something I'd be as happy to see my own kids do as someone else's. I don't want my kids to "get ahead" because someone else has been ground down --- I'd rather see everyone lifted up.
(a) if the existing enforcement regime is already blocking these events (so leaks are rare or unheard of), then "don't fix what ain't broke" (b) by adding restrictions, I may be hindering my doctors from doing things I'd want them to --- "sorry, the radiologist couldn't read your scans; can you re-send the file with permissions for the radiology department, and $400 for our lost hour of troubleshooting?" (c) by encouraging DRM to protect "my" data, I'm also encouraging others to do the same against me --- they won't be in control of their computers, and I won't be in control of mine. I'd rather protect other people's freedoms (even admitting the possibility they might do wrong) to protect my own.
DRM is the "Pascal's Wager" approach to security. For an infinitesimal chance of stopping "really bad" hypothetical things from happening (which may just be "unpleasant," not "really bad"), how much will you cripple your real ability to work?
Those labels ended up useless because the law was only enacted *after* virtually every product in some categories was made with carcinogens. But DRM is not yet ubiquitous --- there are still plenty of music, videos, and books sold without DRM. If people went to the grocery store and saw one variety of cheese marked "may cause cancer!" next to three varieties not marked "may cause cancer!", which do you think they'd prefer?
Which is one of the reasons capitalism *doesn't* work. Information and disinformation are both products with value to different parties. Information helps the consumer and working class. Disinformation helps the wealthy and powerful. Guess which one gets produced the most, when production levels are set by the wealthy and powerful?
Slashdot Mirror
Real-time processing speed is still a concern. Even with *way* more computing power than available decades ago, it still takes a noticeably nonzero amount of time to render a several page LaTeX document. For live document editing, or even re-flowing a webpage when your window size changes, you need a much faster (and consequently cruder-looking) layout algorithm. Now, most document preparation would be much better served by a model like LyX: fast approximate on-screen rendering for editing, with a slow "final polished form" output. However, this means you lose WYSIWYG control over the final output; for the (much rarer than most people seem to think) cases where you actually want this, you're stuck trading off layout quality for computer speed.
It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive.
I'd modify that to "It is contrary to human nature not to be playful." Play is simultaneously competitive and cooperative. Importantly, "winning" in play isn't "for keeps" --- "I'm stronger and faster than you" doesn't translate into "you're my slave bitch for life," or accumulation and leveraging of power over others. In fact, when participants in play are badly mismatched in raw ability, the stronger will typically voluntarily and spontaneously hobble themselves --- not by stopping trying, but in some manner that requires them to do more than their opponents to "win." Opposite to "competition-for-keeps" where the winners get more at the expense of the losers, playfulness tilts the field so everyone can stay in the game, uplifting one another and improving themselves (from whatever level of ability).
And upmodded to compensate. Oh well; contentious is more fun than boringly correct (get plenty enough of that already)...
Unfortunately, f*cking irritating == attention getting, so by the commutative quality of the equivalency group, they are technically correct, and we are f*cking screwed.
What the heck are you talking about? Best Korea already owns the universe. Except for Greenland. So, obviously, the next step is for Robo-Rodman to conquer Greenland --- no matter what the Buddhist Illuminati try to pull. With the the Wal*Mart pod-people tied up supplying black helicopters to the Federal Reserve, the hyperintelligent Mars rovers won't stand a chance against the Lizard People of New Brunswick. Vote Ron Paul!
Officially declared "we annex this territory"? Probably not since '73. But settlements, seizing water sources, tearing down olive orchards, building apartheid walls, changing the real situation on the ground: daily. I'm less concerned by "official" territorial boundaries (imaginary lines on a map), than the physical reality "on the ground." Imaginary lines on a map can be re-drawn at any time, and don't hurt anyone; but when people are expelled from their homes, lose access to vital resources, and are replaced by new "innocent civilian" settlers, the real harm is done (and far harder to justly reverse).
Hard to tell exactly what China's politburo will do (ever since Mao died, no one's been answering calls on my special red telephone line to Beijing), but I'm not so sure they'd really want NK expanding like that either. China doesn't want US military bases nestled right up against their border (so they're alright with maintaining NK as a big buffer region), but they aren't exactly thrilled about having a big mass of desperate starving poor people about to spill over the border either (China's not particularly short on population right now). Doubling the size of NK (while wiping out anything of value in South Korea) wouldn't particularly benefit China. In fact, if the US were to break off close relations with South Korea (let them develop as an independent non-aligned state, rather than a neo-colonial puppet for Western interests), I wouldn't be surprised if China hastened along the demise of NK, and let South Korea take over as a friendly ally/trading partner.
Huh? Where'd that come from? I'm perfectly fine with China not trampling in to directly help North Korea wage hostilities against the South; I'm happy with South Korea being able to defend its border against aggression. Likewise, I'd be fine with Israel not receiving massive support from its sugar daddy to unilaterally steamroll over Palestine; I'd be fine with Palestine having a bit more firepower to fight back wherever Israel pushes its borders to steal more land/resources.
That their holy book says all infidels must convert or die doesn't give them any moral high ground.
That Israel ignores all the parts of their holy book demanding just treatment of foreigners (leaving only the parts about conquest and oppression and exclusion) nicely levels the moral playing field.
An organization that wants any other group wiped from the face of Earth deserves just that.
I assume you're talking about the Israeli government? Or do they not count, because they actually are systematically wiping Palestine off the map, instead of just wanting it?
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
Actually, there's no problem if Torres admits to being 100% inspired by PopTarts. Again, Kellogg owns the *trademark* "PopTart," not rights to the shape, size, color, texture, or flavor of frosted toaster pastries. Torres is only in trouble if Kellogg can show he used their trademark (the "PopTart" name or logo) in a manner that risks confusing others into thinking his cat is a PopTart(R)-branded product. Note that competing store-brand frosted toaster pastry manufacturers get away with selling *actual boxes of frosted toaster pastries* that look just like PopTarts, which is fine so long as they don't use the word PopTart on the packaging (or something confusingly similar, up to the discretion of the court --- "PopTorte" would likely be too close, but "Leaping Sugarpouch" would likely be fine).
What could a self-regulating American --- Texan, even! --- business possibly do worse than turrists? Surely, their own self-interests would prevent them from doing anything truly stupid and dangerous; that's why we don't need government regulators breathing down our necks. Are you some sort of commie, trying to spread lies that the Free Market won't keep us perfectly safe from harm?
Plutonium radiothermal generators have excellent energy density but terrible *power density* --- you can get a lot of energy per mass out of them very slowly, but you can't get high power from them (lots of energy in a short time). Great if you want to keep a rover or spacecraft running for decades without swapping out the battery; but useless for a flappy bug robot, which needs an energy source with a high power:weight ratio.
a cat that is 75% Pop Tart
No, the cat is 75% frosted toaster pastry; Kellogg doesn't own rights to the appearance of frosted toaster pastries (note that you can find plenty of store-brand frosted toaster pastries, usually right next to PopTarts on the store shelf). If the Nyan Cat image actually contained the word "PopTart" (or was sold/marketed using the PopTart name) then Kellogg would have a case.
Frosted breakfast toaster pastries aren't an exclusively owned intellectual property. Nyan Cat doesn't have a "Pop Tart (tm)" label on the image; just an image of a food (?) product of which many generic variants are available.
nyan cat is watching you litigate!
The most popular stuff has DRM --- do you mean like the DRM-free Apple iTunes store? Or Amazon.com's DRM-free MP3's? Or the DRM-free books and CDs you find on store shelves? Or the DRM-free websites you read every day? Yeah, those are all just niche players with no popular impact on the market.
So, DRM can "benefit" the consumer --- so long as you first carefully arrange to artificially set up a problem to "solve" (price of the TV being higher despite the functional and non-functional TVs being *exactly the same* in hardware, with one artificial limitation set). Wow, if we can artificially create a lot more problems, think about how many consumer benefits we could generate by fixing them!
Yes. By attracting further research funding, this fly will likely succeed in spawning a new generation of robo-flies. And, if those continue to succeed in procreating with funding agencies (and even finding new survival niches), we'll eventually have little robo-fly offspring everywhere.
DRM could prevent it altogether.
Given the track record of past DRM schemes (100% failure rate), that's a pretty iffy claim. You could also say "DRM could give you a pony that farts solid gold rainbows --- why don't you want DRM?"
But what is stopping them from sharing it with others?
The doctor being a professional. If that fails, regulations and enforcement of those regulations. But, if your doctor is really out to harm you --- you're pretty much screwed anyway. Why not go to a doctor who you trust to do their job appropriately, without you micro-managing their every action?
This is just my own view, but I think that a world that needs ditch diggers should also treat ditch diggers well enough that there would be no a-priori reason for "ditch digging" to not be something I'd be as happy to see my own kids do as someone else's. I don't want my kids to "get ahead" because someone else has been ground down --- I'd rather see everyone lifted up.
(a) if the existing enforcement regime is already blocking these events (so leaks are rare or unheard of), then "don't fix what ain't broke"
(b) by adding restrictions, I may be hindering my doctors from doing things I'd want them to --- "sorry, the radiologist couldn't read your scans; can you re-send the file with permissions for the radiology department, and $400 for our lost hour of troubleshooting?"
(c) by encouraging DRM to protect "my" data, I'm also encouraging others to do the same against me --- they won't be in control of their computers, and I won't be in control of mine. I'd rather protect other people's freedoms (even admitting the possibility they might do wrong) to protect my own.
DRM is the "Pascal's Wager" approach to security. For an infinitesimal chance of stopping "really bad" hypothetical things from happening (which may just be "unpleasant," not "really bad"), how much will you cripple your real ability to work?
Those labels ended up useless because the law was only enacted *after* virtually every product in some categories was made with carcinogens. But DRM is not yet ubiquitous --- there are still plenty of music, videos, and books sold without DRM. If people went to the grocery store and saw one variety of cheese marked "may cause cancer!" next to three varieties not marked "may cause cancer!", which do you think they'd prefer?
Which is one of the reasons capitalism *doesn't* work. Information and disinformation are both products with value to different parties. Information helps the consumer and working class. Disinformation helps the wealthy and powerful. Guess which one gets produced the most, when production levels are set by the wealthy and powerful?