Alright, imagine you're a radical terrorist. You and your terrorist friend are walking down the street, both with dynamite strapped to your chests, or a can of nerve gas, whatever.
Scenario 1: Someone snipes your friend from a nearby window. He bleeds to death in your arms. Your reaction? Anger. Damn them! Revenge!
Umm, you're a terrorist with a bomb strapped to you, and you get all revengy feeling when your similarly equipped friend get shot before you get to your destination? ummkay...
Death to the imperialists. After all, you have bullets too. They're fighting on your terms.
No, they have a gun, and you have a bomb strapped to you. Or, ok, so you have a gun. Gonna shoot the sniper? Gonna shoot the satellite?
Scenarion 2: A big motherfucking bomb drops out of the sky, blows your friend into tiny kibbles-n-bits sized chunks, and sends you ass over elbows into a crumpled heap some 20 yards away. Your reaction? "HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!" What ya gonna do about it? You'd instantly realize you're way the hell out of your league.
1) You'd be in itty bitty pieces just like your friend.
2) You'd react the same as when he was shot, you'd try and do as much damage as you could, hopefully reaching your primary target.
3) In any case, you end up in kibbles-n-bitsy pieces.
4) Even if they were "shocked and awed", you think they'd say, "umm, nevermind. I'll take off this bomb now and quit worrying about the foreigners who have invaded my homeland"? Yeah, ok. And you must think this because that's exactly what you'd do, right? Hmm, or maybe not...
Shock and awe.
Yeah, you'd be saying, "Shit! How the fuck did his bomb go off early?"
No matter what your politics are, you cant deny that the iraqi republican guard must have shit their pants when within a half hour, the whole friggin cities infrastructure, and most of their heavy weapons, were cinders.
I'm sure they shit their pants, but not because they weren't expecting it. Even the intelligence minister doling out the BS on tv didn't believe the shit he was saying. They knew from the start that they were toast.
Off topic, but I'm eating troll bait anyway: You do know that the only reason we're trying to keep China from getting nukes is because in a conventional war, they'd kick our ass, right? Talk about 200 million americans being shocked and awed that they're not divinely special.
Whaaa...? Where the hell did you get the logic that warhappy == enriching a few select people?
Umm, where the hell did you get the idea that the poster suggested that? You misread the sentence, it suggests no correlation. He said, "let's get somebody who is less A, and is also more B and less C". He didn't say, "let's get somebody who is more B, rather than doing C via A".
As far as the rest, I guess you don't give a shit about the people on the recieving end of our warstick? And I'd love to know how you'd feel about China protecting their righteous ass by putting space-based weapons in orbit. After all, they'd only be being proactive in protecting themselves against a country who's recently been shown to obliterate other countries who have given them no direct, or even idirect, threat! He'll I'd be scared if there was some rogue nation doing that kind of shit. Hmmm, wait a minute, I think things are starting to add up here!...
Yeah, I'm a bit overly worked up, but the multitude of misinterpretations is really grinding at me (another eg. is that the sentence implied space weapons/being proactive = warmongering; it didn't say that, you did!; all it said was that they'd like to see a less warhappy administration!)
That's kinda the point. To rain destruction on anyone who threatens us is one thing. To be a fucking swaggering cowboy barking orders and giving "because I said so" excuses, one who would be laughed at if he weren't so dangerous, is another thing altogether; and that is the position we're in right now.
does make the world a safer place. For Americans.
Yeah, until you guerilla activities. Then your nukes and space lasers are useless. Try compromising and getting along. Sure, it's harder than threatening people, but get better results. Anyone who does what you say through coersion will stab you in the back the first chance they get. But then, we're right and God is on our side and the heathens will see the light once we show them the way.
Now, get me my bucket of molten lead and my red-hot poker. I'm ready to save some souls!
I think he was alluding to the question, "Then why do you believe in *any* of it?" (that isn't verified by other sources, whether they be other accounts of history or scientific discoveries)
I would almost argue that it doesn't, technically, make sense. I would say that about any belief based solely on anecdote. It doesn't make it bad or wrong, I just argue that it doesn't really "make sense".
I'm not sure that we might even be able to recognize it as life
I don't think it would be a problem. Life has a few basic requirements, one of which is procreation. We should be able to recognize that behavior fairly easily. Others, such as respiration, may be harder to recognize at first (they would probably exist in some form though, as a means of recieving energy to sustain the life). Locomotive capabilities of any object/substance discovered would definitely be a clue to investigate other signs of life.
The main thing is that life evolved from self-reproducing molecules. Ones better at reproducing out-evolved the others. Life structures exist to reproduce themselves. Natural structures exists due to the physical process that form them. River beds, stalagmites and stalagtites, caves, mountains, desert wind sculptures, etc., exist due to obvious physical processes. However, even a cactus does something unobvious by growing against the force of gravity. Vines that grow on the ground don't form due to the deposition of "vine molecules", and they have internal structure that easily verifies this. I don't think that recognizing a life form based on a different chemistry than our own should be too difficult (assuming that the other life form is based on the rules of physics as we know them). Even microscopic "life forms", such as virii, should be recognizable due to their behavior.
Don't forget about the meat grinding and sausage attachments, etc., for the KitchenAid! I think they have a juicer, too (about 8-10 attachments).
Did you check out J.A. Henckels knives? I got a 7-piece set of their Classic line for $100 US. They're really sharp and have a good heft to them.
Most of the experiments are pure research. Such things often show no value until years later. It's research for the sake of research, which is what brought about the whole technological revolution. Read about the discovery of electomagnetic radiation for a good example. Also, all of those constants you see for different elements in chemistry books are results of experiemnts. The shuttle and ISS have allowed experiments to be performed that have increased the breadth of mankinds knowledge by providing similar data (the Critical Viscosity of Xenon, or CVX, experiment, for one; Physics of Colloids in Space, PCS, for another). How much is such knowlege worth? *shrug* It's such "little" things that got us to where we are today.
I will say, though, that I have a hard time seeing how firing a civil servant only to re-hire him through a contractor like Boeing to do the same work, with a total cost to government now being ~2.75 times the engineer's salary, helps to save money and "reduce government". It's a bunch of bullshit that puts money into CEOs' pockets and reduces the return on investment by huge factors.
Since I'm already posting: There is little to no research utility in a 1/6th gravity environment. It might be useful for manufacturing, and having natural resources there for mining would be complementary, but NASA's mission isn't to boldly set up manufacturing plants; it's to do basic research and explore. A moon base would help fulfill that mission by providing a true test for a Mars habitat type of module, but there is no other exploration or research on the moon that NASA is (or should be) interested in. It seems that the new Bush plan is corporate welfare, causing NASA to abandon its mission in favor of developing technology useful for making the moon a profitable place to do business. Exploitation of the moon's resources seems a perfect avenue for corporations to contribute to the technology of space flight and exploration (ala the X Prize). Taking advantage of discoveries and advances produced by NASA is one thing, but changing its direction by abandoning research in favor of developing essentially commercial-use-only solutions is harmful to the scientific advancement of the USA.
A Mars habitat module shouldn't need a Moon-based test module. Earth-based testing and remote monitoring of completed assemblies on Mars should be sufficient. I don't see how developing a manufacturing plant on the Moon that refines raw materials and spits out completed Mars habitat module pieces would be cheaper than manufacturing them on Earth and launching them with rockets. As for sending humans, you will have to launch them from Earth (can't exactly assemble them on the Moon), so it would take more fuel and effort to have them stop off at the Moon than it would take to just keep going straight on to Mars. The Mars initiative is cool, but the Moon initiative is a boondogle (aka moondogle;)
Easy: Pass a law saying that all programs doing X must incorporate a propriatary algorithm implementing feature Y.
I know you want an example, so take a look at 802.11g. There is no legal open source driver for an 802.11g chip. Why? Because it's been deemed illegal to have the source that controls these software radio chips be open (due to the fact that 'hackers' could boost the power and broadcast on many channels, violating FCC rules and probably making effective scramblers/descramblers).
So, pass a law saying that any graphical program capable of generating files of some quality must include this detection and don't provide a way for OSS to use it (or pass another law saying it's illegal to reverse engineer this particuar class of software, after all it's for HOMELAND SECURITY!!!), and you've outlawed The GIMP.
Pass some more DMCA laws and you outlaw OSS media players. A few more (very similar to the 802.11g situation) and you don't have hardware that can run OSS anymore. How about a law that outlaws linking to non OSS drivers, due to 'DMCA' concerns?
Sure, everything after the 802.11g example is speculation, but I've shown that there's precedent. Also, I don't think any logical person could argue that many powerful companies would love to see linking to and reverse engineering of their drivers and/or protocols unlawful (unless you pay the proper fees, of course). Sure, so far reverse engineering has provided shelter; but watching the corporate interests manipulate law (copyright law comes readily to mind), if I bet on futures I'd put my money on non-OSS interests continuing the erosion of the common good for their own profit.
Boy, this troll sure is feeding well off this bait, eh?;)
BTW, why include effects on specific companies and foreign countries? Where are you from anyway? (i.e. what's foreign to you?)
Also, what's this "no redeeming value" stuff? Talking about music redistribution, or laws?
Good examples are things like the arms races, competing tech companies, etc, etc. These types of conflict or competition-oriented environments almost demand that innovation, invention, and extremely rapid creative thinking and development occur in order to stay in the running or at the top. Plus the motivation that someone else is always trying to take your place once you are "the best" helps keep people sharp as well.
1) The examples you listed are groups of individuals working together toward a common goal.
2) Destruction and/or suppression of others and their achievements is an equally valid way to "get ahead" of the "competition". These behaviors are widespread, with examples all over the marketplace; especially when dealing with "standards" that give consumers poorer quality and idividual companies lock-in.
3) I think that few individuals are motivated. Those that are will perform highly regardless of their reward. The exception would be those only motivated by money and/or power. In a structure where those rewards exist, they will sell out advancement and progress for their own reward; in a hypothetical environment without such rewards, I think those people would become part of the unmotivated masses.
They have to allow 1m (~3ft) dishes and less, but the HOA can otherwise enforce any rule that the homeowners, one of which he is, passed. And it sounded to me like he meant one of the older larger dishes. In any case, WTF is the point? Either he has one small enough that must be allowed, or he has too large a one which the contract he signed says he cannot have. I mean really, is he going to park in front of a fire hydrant with the intention of getting a ticket just so he can "stick it to da man" by "making them pay court costs when he wins"?
To try, yes, but to succeed? There are so many combinations, especially if you increase to 10 knocks (how are they to know exactly how many knocks you require anyway? they won't, so they'll have to start at 5 and work their way up, which makes the number of attempts grow factorially), that there's not enough time in the universe to fully scan a single machine (because you could have a squence of up to 20, 50, even 65K). Even keeping the sequence length at a reasonable 10, a distributed attack on a single server would take so long that it's virtually impossible. The best (even only) way to get past the knocks is to watch and see what someone else does.
If you're still not convinced, verify it for yourself. Check above where somebody posted numbers for knock length 10. Assume each attempt takes 2ms (which is really LAN speeds, but we're being generous here; we're also ingnoring the timeout time due to there being no RST sent and the sure-to-be-implemented "block everything from an obvious break-in attempt for at least 5 minutes"). Now, since you can assume that the cracker will discover the correct code about halfway through the attempts, and we're using 2ms, you can just divide the number of combinations by 1000 to get the number of seconds (if not using 2ms, multiply by number of ms and divide by 1000). Then just divide by 3600 to reduce to hours, 24 for days, and 365.25 for years. That's the amount of time it will take to find one active server (http, ssh, etc.) on one single computer. Now they have to have an exploit for the particular application they found.
In my area, it's cheaper to pay on a 1 bedroom condo (with 0 down) than to rent a 1 bedroom apartment.
People also don't understand that renting is definitely a better deal if you're only going to be living in the same place for a couple of years.
Yeah, there's too much up-front costs. Also, the first half of a loan repayment is mostly interest anyway, so you're still paying someone else rather than putting equity in your investment.
Well, lets see: You have collision detection, physics rules, pathfinding, AI decision making, I/O, networking, etc., etc., etc. Plenty to do. Personally, I would love to see a cpu dedicated to AI. Improved pathfinding for a multitude of agents and better decision making is a definite need in gaming today.
A corporation does nothing. The individuals that work there are the ones who innovate. The true innovators are the ones who would be doing great things even if they didn't have to work; i.e. if they had the financial resources to innovate on their own. Nearly everyone in the country is forced to work for a corporation (if they want things like food), and nearly all corporations require their employees to sign over any IP developed while working there, so the fact that most innovation comes from corporations is a mere technicality and does not infer that the corporate structure fosters innovation or that there would be less innovation if people were financially able to do research independantly.
Hmm, going up the chain further than I had originally, I see that you're right. Makes me a bit off-topic, I guess:)
Of course, there's the whole issue of how seriously different peoples take such metaphysical threats and how much of a coersion it is just to tell them they will be punished. Mental abuse is a reality, coersion through threat of bodily harm is a reality, and I believe that someone with great concern for the well being of their immortal soul could be coerced by threatening such.
I think it could be argued that once you start repeating a cycle you no longer have a unique game; also, there are a finite number of move patterns on the board (there must be because the board and pieces are finite). Thus, I would suggest that the number of true games if finite, though astronomically (well, even bigger than that I suppose!) large.
so if I "steal" some of your GPL'd code, you still have it, so you have no grounds to bitch about me making it proprietary
Exactly the same argument for "stealing" proprietary code, ignoring the license the author put on it (i.e. pay them money and get no source), and use it and re-distribute it however you want.
Just sayin'...
Slashdot Mirror
Scenario 1: Someone snipes your friend from a nearby window. He bleeds to death in your arms. Your reaction? Anger. Damn them! Revenge!
Umm, you're a terrorist with a bomb strapped to you, and you get all revengy feeling when your similarly equipped friend get shot before you get to your destination? ummkay...
Death to the imperialists. After all, you have bullets too. They're fighting on your terms.
No, they have a gun, and you have a bomb strapped to you. Or, ok, so you have a gun. Gonna shoot the sniper? Gonna shoot the satellite?
Scenarion 2: A big motherfucking bomb drops out of the sky, blows your friend into tiny kibbles-n-bits sized chunks, and sends you ass over elbows into a crumpled heap some 20 yards away. Your reaction? "HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!" What ya gonna do about it? You'd instantly realize you're way the hell out of your league.
1) You'd be in itty bitty pieces just like your friend.
2) You'd react the same as when he was shot, you'd try and do as much damage as you could, hopefully reaching your primary target.
3) In any case, you end up in kibbles-n-bitsy pieces.
4) Even if they were "shocked and awed", you think they'd say, "umm, nevermind. I'll take off this bomb now and quit worrying about the foreigners who have invaded my homeland"? Yeah, ok. And you must think this because that's exactly what you'd do, right? Hmm, or maybe not...
Shock and awe.
Yeah, you'd be saying, "Shit! How the fuck did his bomb go off early?"
No matter what your politics are, you cant deny that the iraqi republican guard must have shit their pants when within a half hour, the whole friggin cities infrastructure, and most of their heavy weapons, were cinders.
I'm sure they shit their pants, but not because they weren't expecting it. Even the intelligence minister doling out the BS on tv didn't believe the shit he was saying. They knew from the start that they were toast.
Off topic, but I'm eating troll bait anyway: You do know that the only reason we're trying to keep China from getting nukes is because in a conventional war, they'd kick our ass, right? Talk about 200 million americans being shocked and awed that they're not divinely special.
Umm, where the hell did you get the idea that the poster suggested that? You misread the sentence, it suggests no correlation. He said, "let's get somebody who is less A, and is also more B and less C". He didn't say, "let's get somebody who is more B, rather than doing C via A".
As far as the rest, I guess you don't give a shit about the people on the recieving end of our warstick? And I'd love to know how you'd feel about China protecting their righteous ass by putting space-based weapons in orbit. After all, they'd only be being proactive in protecting themselves against a country who's recently been shown to obliterate other countries who have given them no direct, or even idirect, threat! He'll I'd be scared if there was some rogue nation doing that kind of shit. Hmmm, wait a minute, I think things are starting to add up here!...
Yeah, I'm a bit overly worked up, but the multitude of misinterpretations is really grinding at me (another eg. is that the sentence implied space weapons/being proactive = warmongering; it didn't say that, you did!; all it said was that they'd like to see a less warhappy administration!)
That's kinda the point. To rain destruction on anyone who threatens us is one thing. To be a fucking swaggering cowboy barking orders and giving "because I said so" excuses, one who would be laughed at if he weren't so dangerous, is another thing altogether; and that is the position we're in right now.
does make the world a safer place. For Americans.
Yeah, until you guerilla activities. Then your nukes and space lasers are useless. Try compromising and getting along. Sure, it's harder than threatening people, but get better results. Anyone who does what you say through coersion will stab you in the back the first chance they get. But then, we're right and God is on our side and the heathens will see the light once we show them the way.
Now, get me my bucket of molten lead and my red-hot poker. I'm ready to save some souls!
So that's what happens when you "enter the light" ;}
I would almost argue that it doesn't, technically, make sense. I would say that about any belief based solely on anecdote. It doesn't make it bad or wrong, I just argue that it doesn't really "make sense".
I don't think it would be a problem. Life has a few basic requirements, one of which is procreation. We should be able to recognize that behavior fairly easily. Others, such as respiration, may be harder to recognize at first (they would probably exist in some form though, as a means of recieving energy to sustain the life). Locomotive capabilities of any object/substance discovered would definitely be a clue to investigate other signs of life.
The main thing is that life evolved from self-reproducing molecules. Ones better at reproducing out-evolved the others. Life structures exist to reproduce themselves. Natural structures exists due to the physical process that form them. River beds, stalagmites and stalagtites, caves, mountains, desert wind sculptures, etc., exist due to obvious physical processes. However, even a cactus does something unobvious by growing against the force of gravity. Vines that grow on the ground don't form due to the deposition of "vine molecules", and they have internal structure that easily verifies this. I don't think that recognizing a life form based on a different chemistry than our own should be too difficult (assuming that the other life form is based on the rules of physics as we know them). Even microscopic "life forms", such as virii, should be recognizable due to their behavior.
I've found socks while working on our dryer. They had somehow migrated out of the drum and into the body.
Don't forget about the meat grinding and sausage attachments, etc., for the KitchenAid! I think they have a juicer, too (about 8-10 attachments). Did you check out J.A. Henckels knives? I got a 7-piece set of their Classic line for $100 US. They're really sharp and have a good heft to them.
Most of the experiments are pure research. Such things often show no value until years later. It's research for the sake of research, which is what brought about the whole technological revolution. Read about the discovery of electomagnetic radiation for a good example. Also, all of those constants you see for different elements in chemistry books are results of experiemnts. The shuttle and ISS have allowed experiments to be performed that have increased the breadth of mankinds knowledge by providing similar data (the Critical Viscosity of Xenon, or CVX, experiment, for one; Physics of Colloids in Space, PCS, for another). How much is such knowlege worth? *shrug* It's such "little" things that got us to where we are today.
;)
I will say, though, that I have a hard time seeing how firing a civil servant only to re-hire him through a contractor like Boeing to do the same work, with a total cost to government now being ~2.75 times the engineer's salary, helps to save money and "reduce government". It's a bunch of bullshit that puts money into CEOs' pockets and reduces the return on investment by huge factors.
Since I'm already posting: There is little to no research utility in a 1/6th gravity environment. It might be useful for manufacturing, and having natural resources there for mining would be complementary, but NASA's mission isn't to boldly set up manufacturing plants; it's to do basic research and explore. A moon base would help fulfill that mission by providing a true test for a Mars habitat type of module, but there is no other exploration or research on the moon that NASA is (or should be) interested in. It seems that the new Bush plan is corporate welfare, causing NASA to abandon its mission in favor of developing technology useful for making the moon a profitable place to do business. Exploitation of the moon's resources seems a perfect avenue for corporations to contribute to the technology of space flight and exploration (ala the X Prize). Taking advantage of discoveries and advances produced by NASA is one thing, but changing its direction by abandoning research in favor of developing essentially commercial-use-only solutions is harmful to the scientific advancement of the USA.
A Mars habitat module shouldn't need a Moon-based test module. Earth-based testing and remote monitoring of completed assemblies on Mars should be sufficient. I don't see how developing a manufacturing plant on the Moon that refines raw materials and spits out completed Mars habitat module pieces would be cheaper than manufacturing them on Earth and launching them with rockets. As for sending humans, you will have to launch them from Earth (can't exactly assemble them on the Moon), so it would take more fuel and effort to have them stop off at the Moon than it would take to just keep going straight on to Mars. The Mars initiative is cool, but the Moon initiative is a boondogle (aka moondogle
Umm, the point of the ISS is to do microgravity research. How does destroying the ug environment help ug research?
Easy: Pass a law saying that all programs doing X must incorporate a propriatary algorithm implementing feature Y.
;)
I know you want an example, so take a look at 802.11g. There is no legal open source driver for an 802.11g chip. Why? Because it's been deemed illegal to have the source that controls these software radio chips be open (due to the fact that 'hackers' could boost the power and broadcast on many channels, violating FCC rules and probably making effective scramblers/descramblers).
So, pass a law saying that any graphical program capable of generating files of some quality must include this detection and don't provide a way for OSS to use it (or pass another law saying it's illegal to reverse engineer this particuar class of software, after all it's for HOMELAND SECURITY!!!), and you've outlawed The GIMP.
Pass some more DMCA laws and you outlaw OSS media players. A few more (very similar to the 802.11g situation) and you don't have hardware that can run OSS anymore. How about a law that outlaws linking to non OSS drivers, due to 'DMCA' concerns?
Sure, everything after the 802.11g example is speculation, but I've shown that there's precedent. Also, I don't think any logical person could argue that many powerful companies would love to see linking to and reverse engineering of their drivers and/or protocols unlawful (unless you pay the proper fees, of course). Sure, so far reverse engineering has provided shelter; but watching the corporate interests manipulate law (copyright law comes readily to mind), if I bet on futures I'd put my money on non-OSS interests continuing the erosion of the common good for their own profit.
Boy, this troll sure is feeding well off this bait, eh?
BTW, why include effects on specific companies and foreign countries? Where are you from anyway? (i.e. what's foreign to you?)
Also, what's this "no redeeming value" stuff? Talking about music redistribution, or laws?
1) The examples you listed are groups of individuals working together toward a common goal.
2) Destruction and/or suppression of others and their achievements is an equally valid way to "get ahead" of the "competition". These behaviors are widespread, with examples all over the marketplace; especially when dealing with "standards" that give consumers poorer quality and idividual companies lock-in.
3) I think that few individuals are motivated. Those that are will perform highly regardless of their reward. The exception would be those only motivated by money and/or power. In a structure where those rewards exist, they will sell out advancement and progress for their own reward; in a hypothetical environment without such rewards, I think those people would become part of the unmotivated masses.
See, girls? This is why you need to give geeks lovin' when they're young!
They have to allow 1m (~3ft) dishes and less, but the HOA can otherwise enforce any rule that the homeowners, one of which he is, passed. And it sounded to me like he meant one of the older larger dishes. In any case, WTF is the point? Either he has one small enough that must be allowed, or he has too large a one which the contract he signed says he cannot have. I mean really, is he going to park in front of a fire hydrant with the intention of getting a ticket just so he can "stick it to da man" by "making them pay court costs when he wins"?
You'll have to forgive him. He's seen Krull one too many times... ;)
If you're still not convinced, verify it for yourself. Check above where somebody posted numbers for knock length 10. Assume each attempt takes 2ms (which is really LAN speeds, but we're being generous here; we're also ingnoring the timeout time due to there being no RST sent and the sure-to-be-implemented "block everything from an obvious break-in attempt for at least 5 minutes"). Now, since you can assume that the cracker will discover the correct code about halfway through the attempts, and we're using 2ms, you can just divide the number of combinations by 1000 to get the number of seconds (if not using 2ms, multiply by number of ms and divide by 1000). Then just divide by 3600 to reduce to hours, 24 for days, and 365.25 for years. That's the amount of time it will take to find one active server (http, ssh, etc.) on one single computer. Now they have to have an exploit for the particular application they found.
You mean 2 bits, right? ;D
No, he'll charge for access to his wireless network. It just happens to have internet access.
In my area, it's cheaper to pay on a 1 bedroom condo (with 0 down) than to rent a 1 bedroom apartment.
People also don't understand that renting is definitely a better deal if you're only going to be living in the same place for a couple of years.
Yeah, there's too much up-front costs. Also, the first half of a loan repayment is mostly interest anyway, so you're still paying someone else rather than putting equity in your investment.
Well, lets see: You have collision detection, physics rules, pathfinding, AI decision making, I/O, networking, etc., etc., etc. Plenty to do. Personally, I would love to see a cpu dedicated to AI. Improved pathfinding for a multitude of agents and better decision making is a definite need in gaming today.
A corporation does nothing. The individuals that work there are the ones who innovate. The true innovators are the ones who would be doing great things even if they didn't have to work; i.e. if they had the financial resources to innovate on their own. Nearly everyone in the country is forced to work for a corporation (if they want things like food), and nearly all corporations require their employees to sign over any IP developed while working there, so the fact that most innovation comes from corporations is a mere technicality and does not infer that the corporate structure fosters innovation or that there would be less innovation if people were financially able to do research independantly.
p.s. :D
Thanks for the troll bait. It was yummy!
Of course, there's the whole issue of how seriously different peoples take such metaphysical threats and how much of a coersion it is just to tell them they will be punished. Mental abuse is a reality, coersion through threat of bodily harm is a reality, and I believe that someone with great concern for the well being of their immortal soul could be coerced by threatening such.
I think it could be argued that once you start repeating a cycle you no longer have a unique game; also, there are a finite number of move patterns on the board (there must be because the board and pieces are finite). Thus, I would suggest that the number of true games if finite, though astronomically (well, even bigger than that I suppose!) large.
Yup. Just ask all of the "heathens" the Christians "saved" in the 1300's - 1700's. Convert 'em or kill 'em, either way you save 'em!
Exactly the same argument for "stealing" proprietary code, ignoring the license the author put on it (i.e. pay them money and get no source), and use it and re-distribute it however you want.
Just sayin'...