I doubt that consumers would be interested in paying more for a feature that actually benefits the utility directly, not them.
The consumers are paying for it. They're just not paying for it in proportion to the amount each one is doing this.
Nobody ever eats a cost; they always pass it on.
It essentially comes out the same in the short-term, though. Consumers aren't going to be interested in paying for something, if they can spread that cost out across all consumers unfairly. (e.g. Why should an investor lose money due to making a foolish investment, when they can get a taxpayer bailout instead?)
Long-term, when it gets to the point that most people are using CFLs, then it will be in consumers' interest to get other people to use more efficient ones, so they'll either demand that the utility company bill more realistically, or they'll use government to regulate CFL efficiency.
NT4 had NTFS. But rather than hairs with you, it sounds like you're saying "a lot" of people didn't upgrade to not-FAT systems until early 2000s. Well, fine, but those Windows 9x users are something I call legacy, and the OS they were running, was obsolete, even at that time. Whether or not a lot of people happened to upgrade to the OSes of the 1990s (Windows NT 3-4, OS/2 2-4, Linux 2.0-2.2, BeOS, AmigaOS 2-3, whatever BSDs were around at the time, etc), the OS code being written in late 1980s and throughout the 1990s treated FAT as legacy and shipped with vastly superior native filesystems. I'm talking about OSes that were actually distributed and used in production by many people (though I'll grant you that they were not a majority); these weren't research projects or academic or anything like that.
If in the mid-1990s, you were running an OS whose default filesystem was FAT, your computer was a joke amongst "technology enthusiasts." Sorry, but that's just how it was. Windows 95/98/ME were never, at any time, not even the day each one came out, considered technologically "current," and at the time, even Microsoft(!!) had more modern products on the market, not to mention Microsoft's competitors. By 1993 (NT 3.1 release), you could put on your Microsoft blinders and ignorantly pretend their pathetic ecosystem was representative of 1993 technology, and you still might be using NTFS. And yes, you might not; you might use FAT instead: but as legacy.
But will it also ensure copyright protections or protect IP holders' rights?
No, but it doesn't hurt those things either. I wouldn't worry about a tool that only serves one purpose and doesn't address others. For example, my car helps ensure I can travel, but it doesn't help me shave my beard. And yet, people who shave don't avoid using cars. IP holders who want privacy aren't going to be unusually (moreso than not-IP-holders) biased against using this VPN service.
the further we explore biology reveals more and more problems with the hypothesis of evolution
Why is it, that not one of these "problems" has ever been put into writing by anyone? Why are evolution's weaknesses always spoken of abstractly, without anyone ever being able to say what they are? This is suspicious.
The sad thing is that, prior to a judge's ruling, fair use is always subjective. And then a judge flips a coin and his word is objective truth.
But you're probably right. Moreso than on the original forum, here on Slashdot you can see there's a lot of discussion about the questions themselves. Everybody's talking about how stupid it is or how strange some questions or groups of questions are; nobody's talking about how seeing these secret questions are going to give them an edge in creating their own competing test.
Indeed, to any layman it looks like you pass at least 3 of the 4 fair use tests with flying colors, and I suspect most people would say the "nature of the work" is functional (though of questionable value) rather than creative.
I would be interested in this community's thoughts on the matter.
No, I think you just wanted to make sure the Streisand Effect kicks in, because Slashdot is a far better vector than your own obscure site. You've already made up your mind what you're going to do.:) Good luck with your bully!
For example, the universe has not collapsed on itself, atoms can form, as can stars - all of these would be prerequisites for any kind of life to form anywhere, and require incredible fine tuning, but these are not explained by the Atheist account.
They're not explained by anyone's account, so why bring atheism/deism into it? If a deist debating an atheist says "God made it so that it would work" then the atheist will just say "But you haven't explained why the universe and/or God didn't collapse on itself before God did that," which is really the same issue.
Saying people can't explain something, doesn't suggest anything about what the explanation actually is. But when you stress that it's the atheists who can't answer, that carries an implication that somehow they don't have their shit together, as opposed to someone else who does. C'mon, dude, that's dishonest.
e.g. "People who aren't American can't fly by flapping their arms." (Or the flip: "Americans have realistic expectations about what'll happen if they flap their arms.")
It sounds like I said something about Europeans being inferior at flying, or being deluded about flying, or something like that. I didn't really say anything wrong, but I sure misled.
I often ask Atheists how they explain the remarkable fine tuning that the universe displays
If I understand this correctly, you want a person to explain why the physical constants are what they are? Geez dude, don't be shocked if
half of them laugh at you for implying they are gods, and come back at you with "there is no God"
the other half says, "Don't ask me, ask God."
But neither group is really saying anything about gods, despite both of them mentioning it.
I love how you call it "remarkable" fine tuning, by the way. We have a sample size of one, and you think that sample is anomalous and unusual? Is it "remarkable" that the universe just happens to be the way that it is? This is supposed to be some subtle clue that leads us to the smoking gun that proves.. something?
Support Amazon. Their DRM only hurts people who chose to buy Amazon's DRM-infected crap. Bullshit patents, on the other hand, hurt everyone, even people who don't do business with Amazon.
Also, if Amazon loses, that doesn't mean they'll stop using DRM. They'll just license this patent holder's DRM, or use a different DRM scheme. Enforcement of this bullshit patent will not result in Amazon dropping DRM. Users abstaining from buying DRMed stuff, is the only way publishers will stop using DRM.
Hey cool. Once we get people used to the idea that jurors can be held in contempt, then we can starting holding them in contempt whenever they don't vote the "right" way.
"Juror, I told you that you have to find the defendant guilty! 30 days!"
Because you will be there to talk to her about them.
Yeah, whenever I get annoyed by intrusive advertising and I'm alone, I always think, "Gee, I wish there were someone to talk to me about how annoying this is. Without confirmation, I can't tell whether or not I'm really annoyed. 'Dad, is this as annoying as it seems to me?'"
Even if your intentions are good, I DO NOT WANT you using my computer or making changes to it without my permissions.
"By running MSIE, you agree..."
Seriously, how many years of experience do people have to have with a piece of bad software, before they take responsibility for what they know that it does?
That would be good enough for regular users, but in software development, one may have to update 10-30% of the source files from Subversion and recompile the whole project, several times a day
I couldn't help but notice, that you said several times per day, rather than several times per second.
Are you worried that after you die of old age, in the unlikely event that your great grandkids start to have problems with their inherited flash drive, they won't be able to replace it?
It is indeed a fact the both evolutionary theory and creationism are the products of their own schools of thought. ..When both ideas are subjected to a reality test, creationism falls flat on its face.
But that's not so much a quality of creationism, than a quality of its whole "school of thought." Subjecting ideas to reality, is a biased way of looking at things. The basis of supernaturalism is that reality and truth aren't the same thing. If you reject that premise (because it seems absurd) then you're naturally going to be against all of supernaturalism's products.
There should be some flag in the data that limits what clients are allowed to access it. Then you can implement, "This can't be forwarded to the press," or "this can't be imported into maplight.org" and other useful things. And at least the client software would then require some kind of licensing, could not be Free, and wouldn't have any sort of unapproved forks that contain unapproved features.
So I have to ask car manufacturers? Home builders? Those industries use the it's-ok-to-resell model, and they're thriv-- oh wait, never mind.
Most industries allow their products to be resold. None of them, compare to movies and games, because movies and games are a special case, totally different than the rest of the last few thousand years' economy?
Slashdot Mirror
The consumers are paying for it. They're just not paying for it in proportion to the amount each one is doing this.
Nobody ever eats a cost; they always pass it on.
It essentially comes out the same in the short-term, though. Consumers aren't going to be interested in paying for something, if they can spread that cost out across all consumers unfairly. (e.g. Why should an investor lose money due to making a foolish investment, when they can get a taxpayer bailout instead?)
Long-term, when it gets to the point that most people are using CFLs, then it will be in consumers' interest to get other people to use more efficient ones, so they'll either demand that the utility company bill more realistically, or they'll use government to regulate CFL efficiency.
That's stealing!
NT4 had NTFS. But rather than hairs with you, it sounds like you're saying "a lot" of people didn't upgrade to not-FAT systems until early 2000s. Well, fine, but those Windows 9x users are something I call legacy, and the OS they were running, was obsolete, even at that time. Whether or not a lot of people happened to upgrade to the OSes of the 1990s (Windows NT 3-4, OS/2 2-4, Linux 2.0-2.2, BeOS, AmigaOS 2-3, whatever BSDs were around at the time, etc), the OS code being written in late 1980s and throughout the 1990s treated FAT as legacy and shipped with vastly superior native filesystems. I'm talking about OSes that were actually distributed and used in production by many people (though I'll grant you that they were not a majority); these weren't research projects or academic or anything like that.
If in the mid-1990s, you were running an OS whose default filesystem was FAT, your computer was a joke amongst "technology enthusiasts." Sorry, but that's just how it was. Windows 95/98/ME were never, at any time, not even the day each one came out, considered technologically "current," and at the time, even Microsoft(!!) had more modern products on the market, not to mention Microsoft's competitors. By 1993 (NT 3.1 release), you could put on your Microsoft blinders and ignorantly pretend their pathetic ecosystem was representative of 1993 technology, and you still might be using NTFS. And yes, you might not; you might use FAT instead: but as legacy.
FAT legacy support is so .. 1990s. And that's why such archaic crap is still in the patent window.
No, but it doesn't hurt those things either. I wouldn't worry about a tool that only serves one purpose and doesn't address others. For example, my car helps ensure I can travel, but it doesn't help me shave my beard. And yet, people who shave don't avoid using cars. IP holders who want privacy aren't going to be unusually (moreso than not-IP-holders) biased against using this VPN service.
Why is it, that not one of these "problems" has ever been put into writing by anyone? Why are evolution's weaknesses always spoken of abstractly, without anyone ever being able to say what they are? This is suspicious.
The sad thing is that, prior to a judge's ruling, fair use is always subjective. And then a judge flips a coin and his word is objective truth.
But you're probably right. Moreso than on the original forum, here on Slashdot you can see there's a lot of discussion about the questions themselves. Everybody's talking about how stupid it is or how strange some questions or groups of questions are; nobody's talking about how seeing these secret questions are going to give them an edge in creating their own competing test.
Indeed, to any layman it looks like you pass at least 3 of the 4 fair use tests with flying colors, and I suspect most people would say the "nature of the work" is functional (though of questionable value) rather than creative.
No, I think you just wanted to make sure the Streisand Effect kicks in, because Slashdot is a far better vector than your own obscure site. You've already made up your mind what you're going to do. :) Good luck with your bully!
They're not explained by anyone's account, so why bring atheism/deism into it? If a deist debating an atheist says "God made it so that it would work" then the atheist will just say "But you haven't explained why the universe and/or God didn't collapse on itself before God did that," which is really the same issue.
Saying people can't explain something, doesn't suggest anything about what the explanation actually is. But when you stress that it's the atheists who can't answer, that carries an implication that somehow they don't have their shit together, as opposed to someone else who does. C'mon, dude, that's dishonest.
e.g. "People who aren't American can't fly by flapping their arms." (Or the flip: "Americans have realistic expectations about what'll happen if they flap their arms.")
It sounds like I said something about Europeans being inferior at flying, or being deluded about flying, or something like that. I didn't really say anything wrong, but I sure misled.
If I understand this correctly, you want a person to explain why the physical constants are what they are? Geez dude, don't be shocked if
But neither group is really saying anything about gods, despite both of them mentioning it.
I love how you call it "remarkable" fine tuning, by the way. We have a sample size of one, and you think that sample is anomalous and unusual? Is it "remarkable" that the universe just happens to be the way that it is? This is supposed to be some subtle clue that leads us to the smoking gun that proves .. something?
Support Amazon. Their DRM only hurts people who chose to buy Amazon's DRM-infected crap. Bullshit patents, on the other hand, hurt everyone, even people who don't do business with Amazon.
Also, if Amazon loses, that doesn't mean they'll stop using DRM. They'll just license this patent holder's DRM, or use a different DRM scheme. Enforcement of this bullshit patent will not result in Amazon dropping DRM. Users abstaining from buying DRMed stuff, is the only way publishers will stop using DRM.
Hey cool. Once we get people used to the idea that jurors can be held in contempt, then we can starting holding them in contempt whenever they don't vote the "right" way.
"Juror, I told you that you have to find the defendant guilty! 30 days!"
I'm glad we're not holding the jurors responsible. If "The Internet made me do it!" is a good enough excuse for them, then it'll work for me some day.
Yeah, whenever I get annoyed by intrusive advertising and I'm alone, I always think, "Gee, I wish there were someone to talk to me about how annoying this is. Without confirmation, I can't tell whether or not I'm really annoyed. 'Dad, is this as annoying as it seems to me?'"
Do living rooms typically have ad filters?
Which works by Amazon, for which they hold the copyright and have added a technological measure that restricts access, does this script circumvent?
It's not the Kindle.
It's not the books.
What is it?
"By running MSIE, you agree..."
Seriously, how many years of experience do people have to have with a piece of bad software, before they take responsibility for what they know that it does?
IE got faster? Cool! Congratulations, Microsoft.
Question: can it display web pages yet? People have been waiting for that feature since MSIE4.
That's the last straw! I'm switching to fiber optic networking.
"No tunes for you!" is better than "Broken tunes for you!"
TFA doesn't say to sudo make install anything.
I couldn't help but notice, that you said several times per day, rather than several times per second.
Are you worried that after you die of old age, in the unlikely event that your great grandkids start to have problems with their inherited flash drive, they won't be able to replace it?
But that's not so much a quality of creationism, than a quality of its whole "school of thought." Subjecting ideas to reality, is a biased way of looking at things. The basis of supernaturalism is that reality and truth aren't the same thing. If you reject that premise (because it seems absurd) then you're naturally going to be against all of supernaturalism's products.
There should be some flag in the data that limits what clients are allowed to access it. Then you can implement, "This can't be forwarded to the press," or "this can't be imported into maplight.org" and other useful things. And at least the client software would then require some kind of licensing, could not be Free, and wouldn't have any sort of unapproved forks that contain unapproved features.
So I have to ask car manufacturers? Home builders? Those industries use the it's-ok-to-resell model, and they're thriv-- oh wait, never mind.
Most industries allow their products to be resold. None of them, compare to movies and games, because movies and games are a special case, totally different than the rest of the last few thousand years' economy?
Since next year (or the year after or whenever) when 256 GB of DDR7 RAM costs $1.95. Take the long view, dude.