Everyone knows that copy infringement is stealing - that means they must have stolen (and therefore possess) that much worth of property and so are perfectly capable of paying such a fine. Obviously.
Actually, it's the other way around. Take the Loch Ness Monster, for example. It can be clearly and obviously proven to exist: catch one, point to it and say "See, there it is!" It's very obvious proof. However, I cannot similarly disprove its existence: I cannot point to the absence of the monster and say "See, there it is not!" Perhaps the monster is just somewhere else you haven't yet looked?
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese.
To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
Your personal physiology is identical to everyone elses', and so what worked for you will also work for every single other person on earth? Great! Spread the news! With this astounding insight, the obesity epidemic will be cured in no time!
Wait? What's that? You mean the metabolic pathways for storing and releasing energy are complex and very different from person to person? You mean that the body actively fights to retain fat stores when less energy is available resulting in crippling pain, headaches, listlessness, inability to cocentrate and insomnia? You mean to say that obesity is caused by numerous interrelated factors that each require corrective action in concert to be effective? It even says so in TFA? Well shucks!
Who'd have thought an illness that 100 million people are unable to cope with might actually be difficult to cure?? No, no! That can't be it. Let's just say they're lazy gluttonous porkchops so we don't have to find solutions to a difficult problem. So much easier for us to sleep well at night.
The problem here is one of correlation vs causation. Someone is not always right simply because they are the 'expert'; likewise, someone is not always wrong simply because they are a layperson. However, when it comes to knowing what you're talking about, there is a strong dependence on experience and familiarity with the subject matter. The vast majority of the time we might expect that an expert who devotes all of their efforts to studying a problem will have some advantage over those who engage with a topic briefly. That is why we value expertise in the first place. It does sometimes happen that experts get it wrong while laypeople get it right, but it's pretty unusual.
My post-doc was the most grueling and difficult thing I've ever done. Two and a half years of crushingly long days, hard deadlines and uncertain future. I guess I got my faculty job out of it (and traded up to the same thing again for another 5 years before tenure review)... so I guess it's worth it?
Now I'm left wondering if tenure is even worth the struggle at the end. Bear in mind, tenure in Australia is not a "secure job for life" as people in the US seem to think it is. We're actually having a lot of difficulty convincing newly minted grads to come and do PhDs when they see all the junior faculty are deeply bitter, cynical and exhausted. But hey, I build robots for a living, so I tell myself when I see those same grads getting jobs that pay more than mine does with zero years experience..
Enlighten me: exactly what demands did Snowden make? The man is an idealist - nobody will disagree - but it is ridiculous to label him a terrorist for whistle-blowing things the government is doing. If what your government is doing terrifies you, I'd argue the problem is with your government, not the whistle-blower.
Perhaps, the GP (like many of us) realised that the adrenaline rush was not enjoyable and had no emotional payoff. Why the hell would anyone sane take an unnecessary risk that they don't enjoy? You may look down on us for being 'boring', but we likewise consider boring. It holds no interest to us. But that doesn't mean we judge you for it. Doing something risky you enjoy? Fine. Doing something risky you don't enjoy? Irrational.
If the maker community gets behind it and settles on 0xF055, the odds of collisions is low. And, if the first 65k addresses are taken up, then like a flock of locusts they shall move on to the next identified 'abandoned' address. Either that, or USB-IF could learn to play nice and assign some 'open spectrum'... or just realise the gig is up. If enough product vendors decide collectively to ignore their assignation of numbers, they effectively lose power over their own empire.
Also, the great thing about open source is that often times you can change things yourself if you do have problems.
Since you ask, I'm from Australia. Yes, we have hobos - for the most part they are insistant but polite. Yes, we have fights - but it's mostly drunk people in pubs fighting after 2 am. The police show up and break it up. I never feel unsafe walking around campus or walking through the city - police are usually everywhere I might feel unsafe. When I am sick here I get socialised health care - I have been taken to the hospital with no ID or insurance info and received full care. I accept Australia is not perfect, but compared to my experiences in the US it is far better in many ways.
I went to the US to do my post-doctorate. What I saw there sickened me - I saw hobos fighting (!) for prime begging spots. I saw people who were injured but afraid to call an ambulance because they couldn't afford it. The food was disgustingly full of sugar and the streets weren't safe after dark. And this was in the North East!
My American friends didn't believe me at first when I told them I didn't want to stay and wasn't applying for a green card. They couldn't imagine that anywhere else on Earth could be better. I got the hell out of there and back to civilisation and never looked back.
"Airplanes don't flap wings after all."
but would be far more economical if they did.
No, they would not. Physics doesn't work that way - you can't just arbitrarily scale things. A bird-sized aircraft can certainly benefit from unsteady aerodynamic viscous force interactions, and insect-sized aircraft don't work without them at all. However, at large scales the inertial forces of the airflow completely dominate the viscous forces. A flapping aircraft large enough to carry a human is possible, but nothing near as simple or efficient as a fixed wing aircraft.
The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.
Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.
I don't know baout you, but I was created by my mother and father. By virtue of being human beings, they bestowed upon me the full complement of human rights that we all take for granted. Whether you call your creator your parents, your god or the universe itself is irrelevent - simply by being created human, you possess these rights.
It's curious you assume he wants more restrictions, rather than more freedoms. I would argue his efforts are more about pointing out the arbitrariness of religion. If some people are allowed to do X, it stands to reason that everyone should be allowed to do X.
And if we were at war with a technologically sophisticated enemy with a standing army embarked on a belligerent campaign, clearly distinct from civilian populations, then you would have a point. The problem is, when your enemy is indistinguishable (or difficult to isolate) from your population, you are no longer keeping information out of enemy hands so much of keeping your people in the dark. At some point, the loss of civilian oversight of the government becomes more deleterious than the depredations of the enemy.
While I agree with your point that some obvious things should never be revealed publicly (eg. missile codes), a democratic government at peace should by principle minimise its secrecy so as to maximise its accountability to its populace. The fact that we seem to be in a perpetual state of war (even without a credible military threat) speaks volumes about the real politik.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more a case of regaining entry after being locked out of your own house, rather than someone else breaking in.
I concur. One low-quality copy ought to do it.
Everyone knows that copy infringement is stealing - that means they must have stolen (and therefore possess) that much worth of property and so are perfectly capable of paying such a fine. Obviously.
Actually, it's the other way around. Take the Loch Ness Monster, for example. It can be clearly and obviously proven to exist: catch one, point to it and say "See, there it is!" It's very obvious proof. However, I cannot similarly disprove its existence: I cannot point to the absence of the monster and say "See, there it is not!" Perhaps the monster is just somewhere else you haven't yet looked?
I would say these are exactly the sorts of questions we should be asking, and they should be able to answer.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese.
To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
Your personal physiology is identical to everyone elses', and so what worked for you will also work for every single other person on earth? Great! Spread the news! With this astounding insight, the obesity epidemic will be cured in no time!
Wait? What's that? You mean the metabolic pathways for storing and releasing energy are complex and very different from person to person? You mean that the body actively fights to retain fat stores when less energy is available resulting in crippling pain, headaches, listlessness, inability to cocentrate and insomnia? You mean to say that obesity is caused by numerous interrelated factors that each require corrective action in concert to be effective? It even says so in TFA? Well shucks!
Who'd have thought an illness that 100 million people are unable to cope with might actually be difficult to cure?? No, no! That can't be it. Let's just say they're lazy gluttonous porkchops so we don't have to find solutions to a difficult problem. So much easier for us to sleep well at night.
The problem here is one of correlation vs causation. Someone is not always right simply because they are the 'expert'; likewise, someone is not always wrong simply because they are a layperson. However, when it comes to knowing what you're talking about, there is a strong dependence on experience and familiarity with the subject matter. The vast majority of the time we might expect that an expert who devotes all of their efforts to studying a problem will have some advantage over those who engage with a topic briefly. That is why we value expertise in the first place. It does sometimes happen that experts get it wrong while laypeople get it right, but it's pretty unusual.
My post-doc was the most grueling and difficult thing I've ever done. Two and a half years of crushingly long days, hard deadlines and uncertain future. I guess I got my faculty job out of it (and traded up to the same thing again for another 5 years before tenure review)... so I guess it's worth it?
Now I'm left wondering if tenure is even worth the struggle at the end. Bear in mind, tenure in Australia is not a "secure job for life" as people in the US seem to think it is. We're actually having a lot of difficulty convincing newly minted grads to come and do PhDs when they see all the junior faculty are deeply bitter, cynical and exhausted. But hey, I build robots for a living, so I tell myself when I see those same grads getting jobs that pay more than mine does with zero years experience..
Q: "What would it take to get the whole gang back together?"
A: "Given that Graham Chapman is dead, about two bullets each ought to do the trick."
STIs? We've got lots of those. Oh wait, never mind.
Enlighten me: exactly what demands did Snowden make? The man is an idealist - nobody will disagree - but it is ridiculous to label him a terrorist for whistle-blowing things the government is doing. If what your government is doing terrifies you, I'd argue the problem is with your government, not the whistle-blower.
Perhaps, the GP (like many of us) realised that the adrenaline rush was not enjoyable and had no emotional payoff. Why the hell would anyone sane take an unnecessary risk that they don't enjoy? You may look down on us for being 'boring', but we likewise consider boring. It holds no interest to us. But that doesn't mean we judge you for it. Doing something risky you enjoy? Fine. Doing something risky you don't enjoy? Irrational.
Unlike those Spanish Inquisition guys - they surprise me every time!
They'll take my XP when they put me in the ground. Warning: this post may contain traces of levity.
If the maker community gets behind it and settles on 0xF055, the odds of collisions is low. And, if the first 65k addresses are taken up, then like a flock of locusts they shall move on to the next identified 'abandoned' address. Either that, or USB-IF could learn to play nice and assign some 'open spectrum'... or just realise the gig is up. If enough product vendors decide collectively to ignore their assignation of numbers, they effectively lose power over their own empire.
Also, the great thing about open source is that often times you can change things yourself if you do have problems.
As I described it to the election official: "It's like wrestling an anaconda".
Since you ask, I'm from Australia. Yes, we have hobos - for the most part they are insistant but polite. Yes, we have fights - but it's mostly drunk people in pubs fighting after 2 am. The police show up and break it up. I never feel unsafe walking around campus or walking through the city - police are usually everywhere I might feel unsafe. When I am sick here I get socialised health care - I have been taken to the hospital with no ID or insurance info and received full care. I accept Australia is not perfect, but compared to my experiences in the US it is far better in many ways.
I went to the US to do my post-doctorate. What I saw there sickened me - I saw hobos fighting (!) for prime begging spots. I saw people who were injured but afraid to call an ambulance because they couldn't afford it. The food was disgustingly full of sugar and the streets weren't safe after dark. And this was in the North East!
My American friends didn't believe me at first when I told them I didn't want to stay and wasn't applying for a green card. They couldn't imagine that anywhere else on Earth could be better. I got the hell out of there and back to civilisation and never looked back.
"Airplanes don't flap wings after all." but would be far more economical if they did.
No, they would not. Physics doesn't work that way - you can't just arbitrarily scale things. A bird-sized aircraft can certainly benefit from unsteady aerodynamic viscous force interactions, and insect-sized aircraft don't work without them at all. However, at large scales the inertial forces of the airflow completely dominate the viscous forces. A flapping aircraft large enough to carry a human is possible, but nothing near as simple or efficient as a fixed wing aircraft.
Jiggawatts is just jiggagoules over time.
The problem here is that she may be totally right, under the interpretation of secret courts whose rulings we don't know. If she has been told in a secret court ruling that failure to comply with these requests constitutes treason (no matter how indefensible that ruling may be), then she is correct in asserting that such is the case. What is even worse is that she could not even tell us if that was the case.
Secret courts and secret laws are an existential threat to democratic society: they remove the oversight of the populace in regulating the judicial process, and inevitably lead to abuse. A law you must obey but cannot be told the expectations of can be nothing but a tool of tyranny.
I don't know baout you, but I was created by my mother and father. By virtue of being human beings, they bestowed upon me the full complement of human rights that we all take for granted. Whether you call your creator your parents, your god or the universe itself is irrelevent - simply by being created human, you possess these rights.
It's curious you assume he wants more restrictions, rather than more freedoms. I would argue his efforts are more about pointing out the arbitrariness of religion. If some people are allowed to do X, it stands to reason that everyone should be allowed to do X.
And if we were at war with a technologically sophisticated enemy with a standing army embarked on a belligerent campaign, clearly distinct from civilian populations, then you would have a point. The problem is, when your enemy is indistinguishable (or difficult to isolate) from your population, you are no longer keeping information out of enemy hands so much of keeping your people in the dark. At some point, the loss of civilian oversight of the government becomes more deleterious than the depredations of the enemy.
While I agree with your point that some obvious things should never be revealed publicly (eg. missile codes), a democratic government at peace should by principle minimise its secrecy so as to maximise its accountability to its populace. The fact that we seem to be in a perpetual state of war (even without a credible military threat) speaks volumes about the real politik.