It is exactly this kind of illegal downloading that would go away if they offered reasonably priced legitimate copies.
Right, just like that other kind of illegal downloading that was supposed to go away "If only they would let us buy individual songs online for a reasonable price..."
And even if for the sake of argument we McDonald's was incideous with its coffee in that lawsuit, the woman was still extremely stupid to put the cup between her legs.
Yes, and the jury agreed that she was 20% at fault, and reduced the damages accordingly. Your point?
If you are discussing the birth place of a famous person, and there exists some doubt about the location, most decent textbooks discuss the question.
Only if there is reasonable evidence on both sides of the question. If, on the other hand, you have extant but incomplete documents versus the rantings of a lone nut who keeps harping on the missing pieces (without providing any real contradictory evidence himself), this might qualify as "some doubt," but the textbook is under no obligation to discuss the latter's opinion of where the birthplace might be.
You seem to be arguing that since evolutionary theory is not complete, we must teach intelligent design. But this is a false dilemma; even if evolutionary theory is in question, there is no reason to assume that ID is the only alternative, let alone an equivalent one. Likewise, we are not obligated to give voice to the flat-Earthers' delusions in astronomy textbooks.
Creationists are fond of pointing out things that evolutionary theory seems unable to explain, and viewing them as a triumph for ID. But again, it's a false dilemma; ID can't explain them either. If evolutionary theory is "full of holes," then ID is almost entirely empty space. If evolutionary theory was somehow proved to be 100% false in one fell swoop, this would not provide any additional support for ID. Science doesn't work that way.
By analogy, if you succeed in proving that Mr. Jones was not born in Topeka, this does not automatically mean that he was born in St. Louis. You have to provide positive evidence that he was born in St. Louis. Otherwise, you're just trying to prove it by process of elimination, and you have a long way to go.
ID simply isn't science. Some of it is philosophy, and could be taught in that context (along with the philosophical counter-arguments, of course). Some of it is pure bullshit, and shouldn't be taught anywhere. But none of it is science. It does not belong in science textbooks.
What scares me here is the absolute disparity (right word?) between the punishment of virtual-space crimes versus violent, sexual and other more "real" crimes.
What scares me here is that you can't tell the difference between the statutory maximum sentence and the actual sentence imposed.
No one is going to get anything close to three years unless they already have an extensive criminal record and/or there are aggravating circumstances surrounding the crime.
The only possible valid comparison at this point would be between one statutory maximum and another. So let's do that... Murder in the first degree? Death penalty. Murder in the second degree? Life in prison. Rape? Life in prison.
Leaking a pre-release movie? Three years. *wipes away tear*
Here are some other federal crimes with a maximum three-year sentence:
Actually, the proof on the web page is perfectly sound (well, except for the assumption that Moore's Law will still apply in 10 years, let alone 500!) because it's only claiming that it would be pointless to start running this particular program. It doesn't hold true for the idea of printing a googolplex in general, but it wasn't intended to.
I was not arguing that there is an optimal time before which it is pointless to start space colonization. I said only that there may be. The only point I was trying to make was that if such a time exists, it's doubtful we would be able to pinpoint it.
This is actually an argument for space colonization, since we cannot really say that the time hasn't already passed.
That kind of argument can potentially keep humans out of space forever. Theoretically, there will always be superior technology on the horizon, and if we always decide to wait for it, then we'll never get anywhere.
This reminds me of the proof of the uselessness of running a computer program to print a googolplex. (For a few centuries, anyway.)
In short, there may indeed be an optimal time before which it would be pointless to colonize space, since our future selves would catch up and overtake us with better technology. But on the other hand, I doubt that we are capable of discerning exactly when this optimal time would be, so what do we do?
...but does it SMELL like a shark? Vision is not the shark's most acute sense. Sharks can only see about 25-30 meters in front of them (which is still pretty impressive in underwater conditions), but they can smell something hundreds of meters away.
This submarine is cool, and a step in the right direction, but it almost seems like they designed it to fool humans, not sharks.
The problem with modern computer aided proofs is they allow the proof to become unwieldy and overly verbose, compared to what it would have to be if just a human produced it.
An experiment by Randi buried PVC pipes underground and challenged dowsers to find the pipes. Well, how does 3/4" PVC tubes with water mimic a large underground water source?
Randi was not testing the dowsers' ability to detect large, natural, underground water sources. He was testing their ability to detect flowing water in buried PVC pipes -- which the dowsers who participated in the experiment assured him that they could do. How exactly does this make it a piss-poor test? Just because it wasn't a test of your preferred definition of dowsing? It suited the dowsers just fine. (Until they failed, anyway.)
Good point. The article mentions delivering these kits "sterile" to be used for performing surgeries. This is of course pointless if you're just going to contaminate them at the site with unclean water.
Then again, it's really not that hard to make water sterile. What's hard is making it sterile and potable, but since no one's going to eat them, that's not an issue. Dump enough chemicals into it, and problem solved. They could probably even ship the bag with some kind of chemical disinfectant pre-mixed into the cement.
Disaster sites without any water at all would pose more of a problem, but I think those would be pretty rare. More likely there would be too much water (precipitation) to allow the cement to dry.
we all were/are outraged when a dictatorship tries to suppress a book, we all shrug and find it normal when a corporation does the same via copyright.
Sometimes the best way to market something is first to create artificial scarcity. I'm not a huge fan of it, but it's a far cry from Soviet-style censorship. (There should be a clause in Godwin's Law to cover Soviet Russia comparisons; they're usually just as irrelevant and inflammatory as comparisons with Nazi Germany.)
More to the point, though, is that you can't take this power away from one subset of copyright owners (i.e., the ones *you* don't like) but leave it in place for everyone else. So if you take this power away from corporate publishers, it would affect original authors as well. Suppose you had written something embarrassingly bad when you were young. Would it be sensible to say that the government should be able to FORCE you to make it public?
For that matter, under current law, virtually everything you write is instantly copyrighted. First drafts, random scribblings, doodles, snippets of code. How would you like all of it to be made public against your will? If a publisher shouldn't be able to own a copyright without keeping the work perpetually in print, neither should you.
</devil's advocate>
Two questions: Are you sure they both specify "pints?" If so, are you sure they're both talking about the same kind of pint?
I ask because the Imperial pint is 20% larger than the US pint, which itself is 33% larger than the typical 12-ounce can or bottle of beer. IOW, 2 to 3 Imperial pints of beer a day is the equivalent of roughly 3 to 5 bottles, which I would tend to agree is an excessive amount to consume every single day.
google apparently has long believed that there is enough data on the internet alone to be able to intelligently translate... What these guys claim to have done is, it would seem, the missing peace of the puzzle for google. I wouldn't be surprised if google gets in on this.
So the Google translation of, say, this Napoleon quotation:
Les hommes de génie sont des météores destinés à brûler pour éclairer leur siècle.
Would go from this:
The men of genius are meteors intended to burn to clarify their century.
To this:
m3n pof genisu are meteros destined to burn in odar to illum1nate the1r tim3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
You can translate that 50 ways from Sunday but without understanding the language - understanding what makes those statements interesting - the machine will lose all their meaning.
Since my daily commute is 50 miles each way (was recently 80 miles each way) and my name isn't "Lance Armstrong", I think I'll pass, thank you very much...
This is a false dilemma. You have more choices than "don't bike at all" or "bike 100 miles a day." You could drive 40 miles and biking the last 10. Or, you could leave your car at work overnight and bike home, then bike to work the next morning. No one said this had to be an all-or-nothing proposition. You don't even have to do it every day. Every bit helps.
Secondly, let's not pretend that you didn't CHOOSE to live 50 miles from work, or to work 50 miles from home. You can choose differently. Even if you still have to drive your daughter to school every day, it's a hell of a lot better than driving your daughter to school every day AND driving another 100 miles on top of it, right?
If you bought a beer that was labeled as "12 fluid ounces," and you discovered that the bottle actually contained 14 ounces, would you sue them for giving you extra beer? That's essentially what's happening here.
The literature accompanying the DVD is technically misleading, but it misleads you into thinking you're getting *less* than you actually are. I don't see how anyone can claim to have suffered any damages because of this.
To sum up: The "theatrical widescreen" side of the DVD *does* show you the film as it would have been seen in the theater. The other side of the DVD shows you even more of the frame -- essentially, the entire frame that was actually shot; there isn't any more to show. And people are complaining about it. Ludicrous.
But it is also true that some of those people are being honest, and they have not cost the copyright holder any earnings, potential or actual. In that case I can't see much harm in the crime.
Downloading isn't the issue. The problem is, if you are PROVIDING illegal content on a p2p network, where is the checkbox that says "Allow downloads only from people who would never have bought it anyway?"
Slashdot Mirror
Just because he's trashing it doesn't mean he doesn't "get" it.
I thought Lucas already did that.
Oh, wait...
The f#@% up you need to shut.
Yes, and the jury agreed that she was 20% at fault, and reduced the damages accordingly. Your point?
I think the point is that "you" are going to experience death, whether a copy of you goes on living or not.
You seem to be arguing that since evolutionary theory is not complete, we must teach intelligent design. But this is a false dilemma; even if evolutionary theory is in question, there is no reason to assume that ID is the only alternative, let alone an equivalent one. Likewise, we are not obligated to give voice to the flat-Earthers' delusions in astronomy textbooks.
Creationists are fond of pointing out things that evolutionary theory seems unable to explain, and viewing them as a triumph for ID. But again, it's a false dilemma; ID can't explain them either. If evolutionary theory is "full of holes," then ID is almost entirely empty space. If evolutionary theory was somehow proved to be 100% false in one fell swoop, this would not provide any additional support for ID. Science doesn't work that way.
By analogy, if you succeed in proving that Mr. Jones was not born in Topeka, this does not automatically mean that he was born in St. Louis. You have to provide positive evidence that he was born in St. Louis. Otherwise, you're just trying to prove it by process of elimination, and you have a long way to go.
ID simply isn't science. Some of it is philosophy, and could be taught in that context (along with the philosophical counter-arguments, of course). Some of it is pure bullshit, and shouldn't be taught anywhere. But none of it is science. It does not belong in science textbooks.
Nah, it's a really big rover!
No one is going to get anything close to three years unless they already have an extensive criminal record and/or there are aggravating circumstances surrounding the crime.
The only possible valid comparison at this point would be between one statutory maximum and another. So let's do that... Murder in the first degree? Death penalty. Murder in the second degree? Life in prison. Rape? Life in prison.
Leaking a pre-release movie? Three years. *wipes away tear*
Here are some other federal crimes with a maximum three-year sentence:
So, once again, boo hoo.
I was not arguing that there is an optimal time before which it is pointless to start space colonization. I said only that there may be. The only point I was trying to make was that if such a time exists, it's doubtful we would be able to pinpoint it.
This is actually an argument for space colonization, since we cannot really say that the time hasn't already passed.
In short, there may indeed be an optimal time before which it would be pointless to colonize space, since our future selves would catch up and overtake us with better technology. But on the other hand, I doubt that we are capable of discerning exactly when this optimal time would be, so what do we do?
Here's hoping, anyway.
This submarine is cool, and a step in the right direction, but it almost seems like they designed it to fool humans, not sharks.
Then again, it's really not that hard to make water sterile. What's hard is making it sterile and potable, but since no one's going to eat them, that's not an issue. Dump enough chemicals into it, and problem solved. They could probably even ship the bag with some kind of chemical disinfectant pre-mixed into the cement.
Disaster sites without any water at all would pose more of a problem, but I think those would be pretty rare. More likely there would be too much water (precipitation) to allow the cement to dry.
More to the point, though, is that you can't take this power away from one subset of copyright owners (i.e., the ones *you* don't like) but leave it in place for everyone else. So if you take this power away from corporate publishers, it would affect original authors as well. Suppose you had written something embarrassingly bad when you were young. Would it be sensible to say that the government should be able to FORCE you to make it public?
For that matter, under current law, virtually everything you write is instantly copyrighted. First drafts, random scribblings, doodles, snippets of code. How would you like all of it to be made public against your will? If a publisher shouldn't be able to own a copyright without keeping the work perpetually in print, neither should you.
</devil's advocate>
I ask because the Imperial pint is 20% larger than the US pint, which itself is 33% larger than the typical 12-ounce can or bottle of beer. IOW, 2 to 3 Imperial pints of beer a day is the equivalent of roughly 3 to 5 bottles, which I would tend to agree is an excessive amount to consume every single day.
Secondly, let's not pretend that you didn't CHOOSE to live 50 miles from work, or to work 50 miles from home. You can choose differently. Even if you still have to drive your daughter to school every day, it's a hell of a lot better than driving your daughter to school every day AND driving another 100 miles on top of it, right?
The literature accompanying the DVD is technically misleading, but it misleads you into thinking you're getting *less* than you actually are. I don't see how anyone can claim to have suffered any damages because of this.
To sum up: The "theatrical widescreen" side of the DVD *does* show you the film as it would have been seen in the theater. The other side of the DVD shows you even more of the frame -- essentially, the entire frame that was actually shot; there isn't any more to show. And people are complaining about it. Ludicrous.
01001001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01101110 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110101 01110000 (Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.)