It is not enough to "just pay the artists" if the artists have already sold the rights to their songs. In that case, you should "just pay" whoever owns the rights. Not doing so reduces the value of works sold, and may prevent artists from being able to sell their works at all.
So, yes, depriving the record companies of money does hurt the artists. In fact, it probably hurts the artists more than the record companies themselves in the long run.
I believe you're making the same mistake I did, assuming the depression was stated to be 1000m deep. When in fact, it is simply that the mass of water that is rotating is 1000m deep. So, it looks like the eddy does not extend all the way to the sea floor.
Wait. It took me a minute to figure it out. The mass of water that is rotating is 1000m deep, but the depression is actually far less than that. Really, the article could've been a bit clearer on that, but I can see how the scientist issuing the press release would've considered that obvious.
It looks like nothing in that picture is more than.6m deep, a far cry from the 1000m claimed in the article. Does anyone know if they are talking about the sea-floor depth perhaps? where did the 1000m number come from?
Obviously not, look at the man's priorities again:
1) spending time with the kids 2) working 3) spending time with the wife 4) playing games
I suppose she should be happy she beat out "playing games."
Re:I definitely agree with this...
on
Just Let Me Play!
·
· Score: 1
Have hope. WoW, and maybe a couple games after it will be like that. But I bet the new paradigm will be fast on the uptake once people start to realize what's happening.
At least, I hope they will. Either that or that they forget to vote.
Looks like he could put a good deal of gear IN the wing itself. I mean why leave it empty? it's a perfectly aerodynamic vessel just asking to be filled with lots of tiny brass-tipped explosives.
But my main disagreement is this: they will also be used at air shows.
take another look at that chart. There are some pretty wide swaths of green: amateur radio service. Some fairly choice bits of bandwidth that amateurs have exclusive or primary status. And a few more where they have secondary status. That costs you about $10 to be able to use, and you can use all the experimental modes on there that you want as long as you obey the bandwidth and power requirements and safety regulation.
But as someone else mentioned, the market solution is there specifically so that the government doesn't have to choose who's the most worthy of a scarce resource. As with any resource under market conditions, prices rise in response to demand/scarcity. If they are not allowed to do so, there will be shortage.
A highest bidder system is supremely fair as only entities with sufficient resources will be able to maintain lock up a band for themselves, or knock off an established company. Presently, the money made from its use is the only way to estimate the public value of that use.
Furthermore, companies use their parts of the spectrum that I willingly allow the government, as my advocate in the area, to allocate my share of. Why shouldn't those companies pay the government, and by extension, me, for the priviledge?
And of course, dividing up the spectrum is more complicated than just giving everyone an appropriate sized piece of the pie. Some applications are more sensitive to their neighbors, or harmonics, or band-sharing or can't be moved for infrastrusture reasons. Would you shut down Arecibo to make your plan simpler? What about the Deep Space Network?
RF bandwidth is an extremely limited resource. Market solutions make sure there is no shortage, but the price is.. the price.
Bush wasn't the only president elected with the electoral college at odds with the popular vote.
But you are correct. We Americans don't live in a democracy. In fact, we never have. We live in a sort of Federal Republic that has evolved into a more direct Republic. Some have called it a "representative democracy" but that really just describes a kind of republic in which the delegates are elected.
According to the paradigm of absolute personal soviergnty over all radiation that passes through you, yes. Of course, this ability should be well publicized, and the practice of properly insulating houses to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happening should be standard. The reason I propose that this should be the policy is that if it is the known policy, people would have no expectation of a privacy that doesn't actually exist.
If you make it illegal to look in houses like that, you only get to punish the creeps after they commit the act. If you make everyone aware of the risk, you can prevent the act from occuring at all.
Frankly, I think all the explanations should be decoupled from the point modifiers. I've seen plenty of trolls, flamebaits, and reduntants that i wish i could mod up as such, and a few funnys that really deserved to go down.
Fortunately, i believe there's a way around it. As long as one person puts in the redundant, the other mods can pile on the "underrated"s and it should work.. i think.
Transmitters must be licensed. Even your 49 mhz walkie-talkie is licensed. It's not licensed to you specifically, it's type accepted, so the manufacturer can sell lots of them. If you were to modify it to transmit on another frequency, you would have an unlicensed transmitter and therefore subject to prosecution if you actually used it.
It makes sense to license transmitters. The EM spectrum of useful radio frequencies has finite bandwidth, and we must have some plan for use so that the most people can get the most benefit out of it. This includes astronomers, hobbyiests, emergency services, cell-phone users, television studios, and many more. Licensing solves the traffic jam problem.
It makes much less sense to license receivers. The radiation is there, passing through people, even. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think that I don't have the right to intercept any signal which passes through my personal space and process it however i please.
But that seems to be the case. Recievers capable of recieving cell-phone frequencies may not be sold. I am unsure of the legality of modifying or building your own equipment for that purpose, but I am sure the cell-phone companies have lobbied hard to make that illegal as well. As a longtime desirerer of encrypted cell-phones, it has frustrated me that they want to transmit "in the clear" and just make it a crime to recieve, especially as equipment from before there were cellphones exists that has no hardware blocks on those frequencies whatsoever. Fortunately, CDMA forces at least a rudimentary level of quasi-encryption.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I said IF you accept the premise that the embryo is a person, then haresting its stem cells is murder, and therefore should be opposed. I accept that you don't accept the premise, and that there might be some room to debate the matter, but that is less relevant to the topic at hand:
What kind of society can think harvesting embryonic stem cells is ok, but cloning isn't? That's totally bass-ackwards. I could understanding thinking both are bad, or thinking the stem cells are the line, or thinking both ok, but it baffles me how people can support embryonic stem cell harvesting, but oppose cloning.
It doesn't even need to be ebay-complicated (and there some people necessarily go home without buying somthing.. so the printing machine isn't really doing it's job if that happens)
Let it be "airline" complicated. Sell a fixed number of dvds at various price levels. compute the starting price level for each film based on the previous month's national volume.
But then the artists need to spend their time hawking their songs instead of singing them. or writing new ones. What we need is some kind of system whereby artists can create works then sell them to some other party that's more interested in the business side of things...
The last film I saw at the arthouse theater was "The Blair Witch Project."
If you'd seen the film, it'd have been the last film you saw at an arthouse theater too. "Art" movies aren't better than the big budget ones for us plebs. They don't even have better actors. They don't even have different actors. They're just cheaper.
As a person opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I can state unequivocally the reason for my opposition, and unless you're a sociopath, if you accept the premise, you would oppose it as well. I believe that the harvesting of stem cells involves the murder of a person.
Cloning on the other hand does not involve the murder of a person. It's pretty much the opposite of killing in any way. As such, I really don't see any reason to oppose it* other than the potential philosphical implications depending on the source of the cells used in the cloning. But those are reasons to oppose things other than cloning, and not the cloning itself.
*Once it works that is. The physical problems and low success rate exhibited by the animal tests show we have a long way to go before cloning could make sense for humans
Slashdot Mirror
Aparantly, YOU did too.
It is not enough to "just pay the artists" if the artists have already sold the rights to their songs. In that case, you should "just pay" whoever owns the rights. Not doing so reduces the value of works sold, and may prevent artists from being able to sell their works at all.
So, yes, depriving the record companies of money does hurt the artists. In fact, it probably hurts the artists more than the record companies themselves in the long run.
Wait, how did the kid misspell 'leet when he SAID it?
I believe you're making the same mistake I did, assuming the depression was stated to be 1000m deep. When in fact, it is simply that the mass of water that is rotating is 1000m deep. So, it looks like the eddy does not extend all the way to the sea floor.
Wait. It took me a minute to figure it out. The mass of water that is rotating is 1000m deep, but the depression is actually far less than that. Really, the article could've been a bit clearer on that, but I can see how the scientist issuing the press release would've considered that obvious.
It looks like nothing in that picture is more than .6m deep, a far cry from the 1000m claimed in the article. Does anyone know if they are talking about the sea-floor depth perhaps? where did the 1000m number come from?
Or swimming with 40 pounds of aluminum on your back.
um.. Clive Cussler? of "rise the titanic" fame?
He's not a modern Clark, Verne, OR Asmiov. He's a modern Ian Flemming.
I'm pretty sure talking pedestrian signals are for the blind. Would you rather they just guessed when to cross? or instead of walking, drove?
Obviously not, look at the man's priorities again:
1) spending time with the kids
2) working
3) spending time with the wife
4) playing games
I suppose she should be happy she beat out "playing games."
Have hope. WoW, and maybe a couple games after it will be like that. But I bet the new paradigm will be fast on the uptake once people start to realize what's happening.
At least, I hope they will. Either that or that they forget to vote.
Looks like he could put a good deal of gear IN the wing itself. I mean why leave it empty? it's a perfectly aerodynamic vessel just asking to be filled with lots of tiny brass-tipped explosives.
But my main disagreement is this: they will also be used at air shows.
take another look at that chart. There are some pretty wide swaths of green: amateur radio service. Some fairly choice bits of bandwidth that amateurs have exclusive or primary status. And a few more where they have secondary status. That costs you about $10 to be able to use, and you can use all the experimental modes on there that you want as long as you obey the bandwidth and power requirements and safety regulation.
But as someone else mentioned, the market solution is there specifically so that the government doesn't have to choose who's the most worthy of a scarce resource. As with any resource under market conditions, prices rise in response to demand/scarcity. If they are not allowed to do so, there will be shortage.
A highest bidder system is supremely fair as only entities with sufficient resources will be able to maintain lock up a band for themselves, or knock off an established company. Presently, the money made from its use is the only way to estimate the public value of that use.
Furthermore, companies use their parts of the spectrum that I willingly allow the government, as my advocate in the area, to allocate my share of. Why shouldn't those companies pay the government, and by extension, me, for the priviledge?
Ok, well then how do you propose dividing up the spectrum so that everyone's happy then? If the government doesn't do it, what organization should.
.. the price.
here is what the current utilization looks like.
And of course, dividing up the spectrum is more complicated than just giving everyone an appropriate sized piece of the pie. Some applications are more sensitive to their neighbors, or harmonics, or band-sharing or can't be moved for infrastrusture reasons. Would you shut down Arecibo to make your plan simpler? What about the Deep Space Network?
RF bandwidth is an extremely limited resource. Market solutions make sure there is no shortage, but the price is
Bush wasn't the only president elected with the electoral college at odds with the popular vote.
But you are correct. We Americans don't live in a democracy. In fact, we never have. We live in a sort of Federal Republic that has evolved into a more direct Republic. Some have called it a "representative democracy" but that really just describes a kind of republic in which the delegates are elected.
According to the paradigm of absolute personal soviergnty over all radiation that passes through you, yes. Of course, this ability should be well publicized, and the practice of properly insulating houses to prevent exactly that sort of thing from happening should be standard. The reason I propose that this should be the policy is that if it is the known policy, people would have no expectation of a privacy that doesn't actually exist.
If you make it illegal to look in houses like that, you only get to punish the creeps after they commit the act. If you make everyone aware of the risk, you can prevent the act from occuring at all.
Why would they bring extra CO2 with them?
Frankly, I think all the explanations should be decoupled from the point modifiers. I've seen plenty of trolls, flamebaits, and reduntants that i wish i could mod up as such, and a few funnys that really deserved to go down.
Fortunately, i believe there's a way around it. As long as one person puts in the redundant, the other mods can pile on the "underrated"s and it should work.. i think.
Transmitters must be licensed. Even your 49 mhz walkie-talkie is licensed. It's not licensed to you specifically, it's type accepted, so the manufacturer can sell lots of them. If you were to modify it to transmit on another frequency, you would have an unlicensed transmitter and therefore subject to prosecution if you actually used it.
It makes sense to license transmitters. The EM spectrum of useful radio frequencies has finite bandwidth, and we must have some plan for use so that the most people can get the most benefit out of it. This includes astronomers, hobbyiests, emergency services, cell-phone users, television studios, and many more. Licensing solves the traffic jam problem.
It makes much less sense to license receivers. The radiation is there, passing through people, even. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone would think that I don't have the right to intercept any signal which passes through my personal space and process it however i please.
But that seems to be the case. Recievers capable of recieving cell-phone frequencies may not be sold. I am unsure of the legality of modifying or building your own equipment for that purpose, but I am sure the cell-phone companies have lobbied hard to make that illegal as well. As a longtime desirerer of encrypted cell-phones, it has frustrated me that they want to transmit "in the clear" and just make it a crime to recieve, especially as equipment from before there were cellphones exists that has no hardware blocks on those frequencies whatsoever. Fortunately, CDMA forces at least a rudimentary level of quasi-encryption.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I said IF you accept the premise that the embryo is a person, then haresting its stem cells is murder, and therefore should be opposed. I accept that you don't accept the premise, and that there might be some room to debate the matter, but that is less relevant to the topic at hand:
What kind of society can think harvesting embryonic stem cells is ok, but cloning isn't? That's totally bass-ackwards. I could understanding thinking both are bad, or thinking the stem cells are the line, or thinking both ok, but it baffles me how people can support embryonic stem cell harvesting, but oppose cloning.
What? you can get the LN2 from the same place you get the dry ice. Bring your own dewar of course, but LN2 is cheaper than milk.
It doesn't even need to be ebay-complicated (and there some people necessarily go home without buying somthing.. so the printing machine isn't really doing it's job if that happens)
Let it be "airline" complicated. Sell a fixed number of dvds at various price levels. compute the starting price level for each film based on the previous month's national volume.
But then the artists need to spend their time hawking their songs instead of singing them. or writing new ones. What we need is some kind of system whereby artists can create works then sell them to some other party that's more interested in the business side of things...
Why, why, why won't "Hydric Acid" catch on? it sounds so much more menacing. Besides, surely everyone and their brother has used the DHMO name by now.
The last film I saw at the arthouse theater was "The Blair Witch Project."
If you'd seen the film, it'd have been the last film you saw at an arthouse theater too. "Art" movies aren't better than the big budget ones for us plebs. They don't even have better actors. They don't even have different actors. They're just cheaper.
But why is cloning, "not quite right?"
As a person opposed to embryonic stem cell research, I can state unequivocally the reason for my opposition, and unless you're a sociopath, if you accept the premise, you would oppose it as well. I believe that the harvesting of stem cells involves the murder of a person.
Cloning on the other hand does not involve the murder of a person. It's pretty much the opposite of killing in any way. As such, I really don't see any reason to oppose it* other than the potential philosphical implications depending on the source of the cells used in the cloning. But those are reasons to oppose things other than cloning, and not the cloning itself.
*Once it works that is. The physical problems and low success rate exhibited by the animal tests show we have a long way to go before cloning could make sense for humans