It's curious though, that the only really successful landing was on land. I always thought it was because it is so much more difficult, getting to land on a small surface, bouncing on the waves, but when I read the actual papers on it on the site of SpaceX itself, it seemed it never had anything to do with it. It were things like: to few fuel, or a computer-glitch that caused a delay in steering, etc.
Yet...once again, it goes wrong on the drone/barge. Are they just extremely unlikely, or IS it actually so much more difficult to do on there, even when they don't give any indication of it themselves?
I think the analogy is a bit misleading here. The main point you are trying to make with your analogy, is that the drive-thru wouldn't make it 5" if 7" has 75% of the market. Which is true on itself, but it wouldn't make that decision based on the 'only' 25% share (which is quite big, actually), but because of the trouble adjusting the drive-thru, while there is no benefit whatsoever in it (since one looses the other 75%).
To make your error more clear: imagine I repeat *all* that you said in your analogy, but switch the 5" and the 7". Then your end-question becomes: "Do you build it to 7' just because some international body (and 25% marketshare) said that was the "standard" or do you recognize the REAL standard and build it to at least 5'?"
Well, yes, if you are smart, you do. that's because a 7" drive-thru will also accomodate a car that is smaller, while a 5" obviously won't do for the 7" cars. Therefor, making a 7" drive-through will be fine for 100% of the market (in the given example), with minimal extra costs for the owner. One would be a complete fool to not do it.
Thus, as one can see, the answer to your question isn't really based on what standard is being proclaimed, but by who you give the 7" too, and the possible benefit one would get if you make your drive-tru bigger or smaller.
In ALL cases (as long as it's worth it), the 7" one would be preferred, so the analogy doesn't really say anything about what's better: to choose a set standard, or the 'real' standard.
In fact, with the browser(s) it's mostly the same as what I said; websites that can adapt their website to accommodate both browsers, would be foolish not to do so. And, exept for some special cases, most websites DO support them. Will webmasters make their site ONLY available for IE, if they can make it available to firefox too and gain another 25%? I very much doubt it.
Your analogy only works if you accept the premise it's 'IE-cars' that has the 7" (but that's arbitrarily chosen), and that it is impossible for the drive-thru builder to accommodate for cars of 5" and 7" of clearance.
Both premises are, when compared with browsers, highly doubtful to be true, and thus the analogy fails due to those differences.
This argument is also known as the "OMG! Thinkofthechildren!"-argument.
I'm always struck by the inherent hypocrisy of it. At the same time, I believe people should be able to raise their kids as they see fit (at least, to a large degree), and the government shouldn't come into the picture anyway.
I guess the best solution would be to be involved with your children, talk to them about certain things on the internet, and if necessary, show your disapproval of certain things... but leave them SOME choice, even when you have the tendency to block all of it.
Because, let's be frank: WHO didn't start to get to know about "it" when they still were kids. I remember - in my days when the Net wasn't around - in the school some kid or another brought a Playboy with him, and we were all watching with big eyes what was in it. It's just the way things go; one learns about these things BEFORE one gets 18, and well...we all know how; by watching it 'under the radar' of parents and the like. Why? Heck, because we knew they would 'censor' it if they could - even if they themselves learned it the same way.
This never-ending cycle of hypocrisy is what bothers me the most. People constantly get in the 'savethechildren'-mode, conveniently forgetting - every damn generation - that they did JUST the same, and it was that way they got to know about it.
Of course, you have exceptions; like in China, where a married copple of over 20 didn't even know how the basic things. And I'm sure in the ever-more prude USA things are also really getting hysterically absurd in this regard...But the fact is, it's just a normal way of getting to know about it. The 'prudeness'-hysteria (including censorship) is doing more harm than good, sometimes.
Yes, yes: the net has also some extreme stuff, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. But by some people, that line is drawn pretty damn hypocritical. And the self-appointed 'childsavers' have their field day because of it; exaggerations abound to scare people into thinking the only possible response is censorship. Sometimes to the detriment of a more objective truth. The 'the net is full of porn where our kids just happen to stumble upon and were traumatised by it' is one example of such utter BS. Sure, that can happen, but the truth is, especially for teenagers, for 90%, when they come at 'dirty' sites, it's because they were *looking* for it.
*gasp*
Well, yes...in our time, we went looking to get our hands on Playboys and the like, nowadays, they search the net for it. Heck, if the Net had existed back then, I'm pretty sure I would have been trying to peep on those sites too. Is there any dude here (prude USA'ers not counted) that can claim he wouldn't have done the same?
(ok, I know that such a question begs smart-ass remarks, but the point is; I think we all know the majority of guys would just do the same if they were a kid. Why try to censor something you did (or would have done) the same? Unless one deems himself traumatised by those experiences, it just doesn't make sense to have such a holier-than-thee approach, knowing it's actually not true and hypocrite.)
I think there are better options than bland censoring or forbidding youngsters to look for 'it'. It never really helps anyway.
"Oh, sure, I do that myself actually. But I don't know how useful the stuff I make in my spare time is, and since my bank account doesn't know either there's a limit on how much time I can spend on it -- regardless of how useful it actually is."
Well, I don't know how useful the stuff you make is neither.;-)
That said, an OS/project like Linux already demonstrated it's usefulnes. Just as with the 'many minor sponsors', you also have the 'many minor time-spendings to make something', I guess. Even pretty large and complex things (such as Linux) can be made by a relative limited timespending each day/week, if enough people are working on it. In that respect, the limited time you, as an individual, spend on it does not lead to a limiation of the product in question, as long as enough other individuals spend their limited time on it.
It is my belief that, if a product is popular enough - say, it from the moment it has 5 developers and 10000 users or something like that, it can sustain itself indifinately by the mere 'fractions of time' those people invest in it.
"Cool, I didn't know they did that. Maybe that is the best option, and we just need to reduce the overhead of actually making donations (need to specifically set up a account with a micropayment service, after finding a service that you actually trust and that the project uses, etc...). I mean, I don't have a paypal account (and I'm not sure I really trust them enough to want one anyway), most projects probably can't take credit cards, that one online payment service (e-gold or something?) got shut down for working too well..."
I think there is a need on a world-wide (or at least continent-wide) easy way for all people (including students!) to be able to pay small amounts. Something like a pre-paid card for a cell-phone - but then for the internet. It's beyond me why nobody came up with a succesful product like that.
"At the same time, how is it possible to produce those works if you need to spend your time producing something salable so that you can eat? Somebody needs to pay you for something, and the most effective way we've figured out to do that seems to be to restrict availability of what you produce to only those who can pay you for it."
Though I do not doubt that for some (high-cost) things it would cause problems, as a general statement, there are a few answers to your question.
First of, let's not make a false dillemma; it's not a matter of all the time devoted to produce those works, or all the time devoted towards something that earns money - at least, not necessarily. One can, for instance, have another job that earns you money, and create 'art' works (or whatever) as an aside. While time is limited, it's seldom limited to the point where one has absolutely NO time left to do something else than 'work for a living'.
Secondly, while it's not always possible to have one major mecenas (as was the case in the middle ages, often), the internet also provides the possibility (at least, potentially) to have micro-payments. So, instead of one big sponsor, one can have several minor ones. As long as your product is popular, I think there is a definite chance of that. (As an example; see Freenet; it's paying a full time devl for several years now, just by what people donate to the project.)
Secondly; your assertation at the end is false. There have been examples enough where people did not need to pay for something (well, unless one goes into semantics and conclude that only the sun rises for free). It's not an absolute necessity; though of course, in our capitalistic society (which I agree works much better than a communistic one;-)) as a whole, the market rules, and people pay for products they want. But it must be said that the cost for a product consist of the material, and the time/work one put in it. In this respect, digital 'products' are something outside the normal. (And, in extension, all 'IP' is.) The cost of material there is...well, none. One DOES put time/work in it - in the ORIGINAL, but that is often not in comparison to the number of digital copies that can be made. After the original, the time/work that one puts in it, is virtually nothing.
But a link is ultimately a reference. That would mean, that giving a reference of an activity that one *knows* is illegal, is illegal on itself. If consistently applied, than giving you an address in the netherlands where you can get weed, and knowing this is illegal (in your country, for arguments' sake, I mean) would become illegal too.
This seems rather absurd, and a direct infringement on free speech. There ought to be (and in many countries there is) a difference between an illegal activity and giving a reference of such an illegal activity. As another poster already linked; some countries (like Spain) have already decided it IS legal to have links to sites which host illegal content.
"Of course you know me: we had a long exchange about the moral implications of non-scarcity of intellectual works, remember?"
Ah, yes...that does ring a bell...somewhere. We never did come to a mutual satisfactional conclusion, but the conversation was interesting. No doubt, on slashdot the topic will come up again, and we'll be able to continue.;-)
You have a better memory than me, it seems (though 'knowing someone' is a bit vague, online).
But of course, I don't know the specifics of this case, so I really can't comment directly on it. I just thought it was a bit strange, in the context of 'linux ready for the desktop', that one would be recommended to have a win OS ready.
"I'm using it as my main desktop OS right now, so if it isn't ready, what is missing?"
Well, easy installment of not-common applications, for one. Being able to run most games another one.
I agree that 'running' the OS is doable, and nowadays, even running the more common applications (to browse, to mail, to type a letter,..) is no problem anymore. BTW, I know the whole discussion about 'it's the developers fault (or the creators of the drivers) that games can't play etc....but the fact remains it's far more difficult on Linux. And I also agree that some of it is due to not being familiar with the OS. *But* I think it's also objectively more difficult (still).
Let me give you a real example that I encountered myself. When I first installed one of the earlier versions of Mandrake Linux (one of the first times I tried linux), I was quite surprised how well it installed (compared to another time I tried to install a corel linux version which totally borked my computer). All hardware was recognized, and I didn't have any problems with my sound or anything. On itself, that could be considered 'ready'.
But...then I wanted to install the operabrowser on it. Now, I had done the same with my windows box (win2000) and there I went to the site, downloadsection, clicked on the exe, and it installed itself, and I could use it. Total time: a few minutes.
With the mandrake box, I tried the same. Alas, the only browser installed was the one of KDE, and there was something wrong with it: all letters were unbelievably small and the layout of webpages was completely screwed. I tried for two hours to get it right (with browser-settings, then with fonts/etc. settings of the OS itself, etc. Nothing helped. I decided to update the browser, but this was difficult, because one has to be able to *see* the page in the first place (there wasn't yet an autoupdate of it, back then). After 3 hours, I managed to have a browser with which to work. I went to the operasite...hmmm...where is the linux version? After 10 minutes, I found it (was in some other part of the site). I open the page...whoa! Instead of one exe (or equivalent), there were a dozen of linux-installerish-things on that page! What do I use?! Another 15 minutes to look around...gather I needed an rpm. Ok, I download the rpm...try to install it, but to no avail. Another half hour to try things, but then I find out Mandrake uses rpm, alright, but there are different rpms! Ok, looked at what rpm it could be. Luckily, there were only two, and I just tried the other one. Ok, now installation started ok...but then...error, dependency this and that and library this and that was missing to run it properly.
I was like: what the-? Ok, again searched for hours to try to find the things missing, and ultimately I succeeded in running the operabrowser properly...after spending most of the day on it...
Now, granted, things would have been much faster if I had been familiar with the OS, but still...why didn't it came with the KDE-browser perfectly working, out of the box? why are there a whole plethora of different versions who are incompatible with eachother? why can't I just 'click and install and run' as in windows? Why do I get interdependencies and why do I have to search for libraries?
Even if I knew the OS well, it still points to a less user-friendly concept then windows is. And it's all good and well I'm a tinkerer myself and wanted to try out Linux. But, really, imagine Joe Doe - who even has no idea what the command line of windows is about - using Linux back then and wants to install the operabrowser? You can surely see what would happen: after half an hour he would get so frustrated that he would go back to his windows puter. Most users do not want to tinker or search; they want just to click&install&run.
Now, by now, things have much improved with the OS, the internal browsers (firefox is pretty well known and user friendly), and the opera-browser, no doubt. And a whole bunch of commonly used applications are as well, w
While I don't want to pick sides here (I don't know the guy - he can well have been obnoxious, as you say) what you said DOES in fact point more towards the 'linux isn't ready for the desktop yet' then the opposite. The fact that you expect somebody to have a windows OS ready in case the Ubuntu one screws up inherently implies it's not up to par. I doubt people from MS would advice to have an ubuntu OS ready in case installing their OS fails.
I myself had troubles installing Ubuntu too (though, it was the former version, not the latest one). On the other hand, I never had trouble with a win version, as yet (even though my first one was win95). That said, I never had trouble with installing Mandrake Linux (as it was called, back then), so I'm not claiming Linux is impossible to install. But it must be said it's more difficult to use then windows. not for the Linux-expert, of course. And strangely enough, also not for the grandmother who just wants to surf and email a bit (linux has improved enough for that)...no, it's what I would call the 'power-users' who *aren't linux-experts who can't really do much with it.
They want MORE than just surfing or the normal application-stuff; they want to install and try out a whole plethora of new, sometimes rather obscure programs and applications - and it's a pain in the ass if you want to run them on linux - if it's possible at all.
But...yeah, I know it's not going to happen: too many bible-belt USA-dudes on slashdot for that. But at least they could place it under 'flamebait', then.
Make a joke about anything you want - but not about the Bible, God and Jesus! Meh.
Let me be *really* off topic now: ever noticed that, if the bible-belt twits got their way, they would be giving out fatwas of their own? There isn't really THAT much difference between fundamentalist moslims and fundamentalist christians.
Now, thus, it turns out Jesus was just a hippy under high voltage! That would explain not only his water-walking, but also the aureole he's always depicted with.
30 years isn't really all that much, especially with (as a whole) little R&D funds and investments. The hydrogen engine is also 30 years, and faces the same problems as you describe in competing with the established petrol-engines (and the infrastructure has to be laid down and will cost hugely too). Yet, in any common understood sense, people would agree it's a new technology (e.g. at the start of it's potential and development). Nuclear fusion development has been around for more then 50 years, yet few would deny it's a new technology. 'New' doesn't necessarily means just discovered, but rather new in comparison with the old technology, and with more potential (technically spoken, ofcourse; it's always hard to predict economic potential, certainly when it has to compete against an already established market).
Furthermore, the tracks are so expensive largely due to the cooling system needed for the superconducting magnets. It already went down from the first cooling-systems which had to have extremely low temperatures, but still a cooling system is still needed. Breakthroughs in new systems, or in high-temperature superconducting material might cut the costs substantially. This, however, needs large investments in R&D. Forking is only needed when it's truly needed, and that depends on the tracks (and the goals) you want to go. Obviously, a maglev will not be used to bring you to every backwater-peasant village with a station in europe. But, regardless, there are maglevsystems that allow you to switch/fork just fine. The 'worse comfort' level is nowhere to be seen or heard by commuters that actually took such a train. Most describe the ride as extremely smooth. The pull&push of the magnets are probably going fast or smooth enough not to cause any discomfort, but I'll tell you when I've tried it myself.
Except for the new infrastructure, I don't see any of your objections as really an instant-killer of the technology, not even an economic success. The new infrastructure is more difficult to overcome, just as it's a major problem with getting momentum for hydrogencars (a bit of a chicken and egg problem). but it's not unsurmountable. And, depending on your goal, it's maybe not necessary. Contrary to you, I do not believe its future is only in short distant transport; one of the key features of a maglev is it's potential for high speeds. Research has shown it not beyond possible to reach more then 900km/h with a maglev; far more then is possible with current trainsystems. As for energy efficiency; needless to say that continued research would lead to more efficiency here too - not all such efficiency has to come from wheels and brakes, after all.
I think, if research was adequately funded, most of your objections would find a technical solution pretty soon (if not already). The new infrastructure would be a severe economical problem, true...certainly if you envisage a complete replacement of all traintracks that exist now. But I personally believe that it has more potential benefits for long-distance, high-commuting destinations. For instance, a network of maglev-tracks directly connecting all the capitals of the European countries, for instance. In that way, they would be a competitor for airplanes, and a maglev would still be more energy efficient then an airplane, even with the current level of efficiency.
Some of this is always a bit of speculation, of course, but there is, IMHO, not an intrinsic reason why a maglev wouldn't turn out to be superior then anything we have today.
I would. you might be right that it wouldn't be popular among the normal commuters (not at 3x the normal price, anyway), but I've never been an a maglev, and would like to try it once.
So...maybe you should see it as a touristic attraction.
Ofcourse, you're probably right with the rest of your analysis. And indeed, it will probably cost 5 billion, if they predict 2.6 - those over-budget things happen a lot, with huge projects.
That said, a small remark, though. When I see the argument 'current TGV trains can go almost as fast as maglevs, for far less money'...well, true, in a way. But that's NOW, and that's when our current state of investment is pretty low, just because of the arguments you brought up. But, the old trainsystem can only be optimized in a relatively small way anymore: it's more of a technical 'polishing' and optimizing...but at the end, no drastic improvements are possible, because it's a fully matured technology.
When the jet-engine for airplanes was first build, they weren't all that faster then the old, matured and optimized classical engines neither. And they were costing a lot more, and were (are) more expensive in maintainance. If people then would have said; well, just let us continue the old way and optimize our current engines a bit further, the technology for the jet engine wouldn't be where it is today. It has proven to be a superior product in many respects by now. Maybe the same can be said of the maglev-development. Sure, it's more expensive to buy and to maintain, and it's currently not all that much faster than an ordinary high-speed train - but it's a NEW technology. That doesn't just mean it's more 'sexy', it also means it's at the beginning of its potential, not at the end, like our current, matured train-technologies.
It's often worth to give a novel technology a shot, even, certainly in the beginning, it doesn't seem all that better and is often more expensive. Fighting against an established market/technology can be very difficult, but it can have its advantages in the long term too.
You're missing the point.? I'm not saying they are angels. I'm actually pretty in agreement with you that the things you say are likely.
But firstly, you have to give the benefit of the doubt, as long as you're not absolutely sure. And most importantly: it doesn't matter how THEY behaved, I'm talking about how we should behave. Giving 'notification' on a forum is just crappy. The real notification happened on the 11th. They sued a week later; in my opinion, that's too few, too fast, if you're goal is to give the company the opportunity to make a decision about keeping the code (or not) and settle things (or not).
I would find it reasonable (regardless of the perceived 'evilness' of the company) to send a proper notification (as they did the 11th), wait 10 days - possibly give a phonecall, give another official notfication, wait another 10 days - possibly with another phonecall, THEN sue them if they don't react.
That would amount to 17 days (about the same as it was now), but with two clear official notification, two possible phonecalls, and enough time for them to react AFTER they received a proper warning.
I'm well aware that you might have another opinion on this issue...but, well, opinions differ. Personally, I think the whole period of the 'forum-warning' doesn't really count. And that the period between the official notification and the time they sued is too short. The goal isn't suing, after all; it's to make them comply. What I describe isn't THAT difficult or unreasonable to do, before going the legal way.
"People who are pro[driving] basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep driving cars around. Do you "find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite"?"
If there would be a viable alternative that deals with their mobility: Yes.
"If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty?
Yes."
Well, at least you would be consistent, to which I applaud you. But forgive me for being a bit skeptic until the time you would actually be in that situation. To be prepared to unjustly die for your preference for the death-penalty (instead of life-long imprisonment) seems a bit *too* martyresque. Certainly, if I were to be imprisoned unjustly and they would say: it's that, or all the criminals go free, I might be inclined to accept it...if those were truly the only conditions to choose from. If some other reasonable alternatyive would exist to choose from, however, I would choose that. It strikes me as a form of zealotry that you would prefer to keep the death penalty, even when facing an unjust death, when there is a ready available alternative, which is used in practically all the rest of the world. It makes sense to protect others even with your death if that's the only choice. It's rather fundamentalist in nature if you want to die just to be sure some real criminals are put to death too.
"As a minority, there are openings available to a black man that a white man can not even apply for. So, I'd say the black man... IF he bothers to look for a job."
Theoretical bullocks. Whatever legal openings there are, they can't fight an employer who doesn't want blacks. And if you refer to 'positive discrimination': that's an oxymoron.
"Firstly, you assume the crimes are the same when they may not actually be."
I don't assume anything. there was a paper made on this issue, and *they* said it. Ok, not 'the same' (obviously, it can never be exactly the same); but for 'similar' crimes. Whether or not they are the same, statistically speaking, that doesn't matter, unless you argue that somehow, black people always do more and worse than white people when committing a crime.
"Second, you assume there is no context. (Person A may go quietly when arrested, Person B may fight and get charged with Resisting Arrest. When they get sentenced, Person B, as more of a danger than Person A, gets a longer sentence.)"
So you assume black people and hispanics are consistently more resisting arrest, fighting, being a danger, etc. then white people? Have you anything to back that up? And is it impossible that they are being a bit harder targeted than white people *by* the police? Or do you claim there is no racism with the police neither?
"Third, you assume no history. A person with a history of other offenses will naturally get a longer sentence for 'the same crime' as a first-time offender."
As far as I can remember the codnitions were similar too.
Now, regardless of all the different factors that may or may not come into play (and I do agree other factors do play a role too), your staunch refusal to acknowledge that race may, indeed, also be a factor of importance, is a bit astonishing.
I think we'll always be talking aside eachother in this matter. You follow the technical stance, I follow the ethical stance.
According to you, there is no ethical problem, because copyright handles copyright, and nothing else. According to me, there IS an ethical issue, regardless of her legal right to do as she did. You say: it could be used if it didn't involve her likeness...so you actually acknowledge it DOES restrict the use of her CC'ed pic further. You don't see that as a problem, because it's derived from another law. I do see that as an (ethical) problem, because that means that *in practise* it limits the use of that pic under the CC she agreed to. What's more; in this case, it only limits it if you make active use of that other law.
Imagine there is a law there that gives you the right to forbid the use of recognizable faces, period. Sure, it doesn't affect the CC licence on itself....but it *does* in reality, doesn't it; one can't use it freely anymore if a face is on it. I would argue that those who agree that their pic can be used (without stating any further conditions), should not use that other law - EVEN if their face is on it. In my view, it doesn't matter if they officially waived that right, or if the CC says you keep all your additional rights...well, duh; of course they do, they can't supercede the laws of a country in any case, so such a claim would be futile. But as a human and in regard to following the spirit of the CC, they would still be lamers, for using that law.
Why? Because I think you have to adhere to the spirit of what you agreed too, not to the (legal) letter. You may be of the opinion they still adhere to the spirit of things if they sue somebody based on other laws, even if that means (in practise) a restriction on the use of their CC'ed work, but I don't.
Meh. Let's leave it at that. It's getting more about (very subjective) opinions, and those debates are fruitless. If it's of any consolation, I agree with you on all the facts and legal stance and arguments you've made. I just think they are wankers because, IMHO, they're deliberately restricting or even making works under the CC useless by invoking other laws - a CC they agreed to themselves in the first place.
But they have the legal right to be wankers and crybabies.
Slashdot Mirror
The rocket clearly has no sea-legs. ;-)
It's curious though, that the only really successful landing was on land. I always thought it was because it is so much more difficult, getting to land on a small surface, bouncing on the waves, but when I read the actual papers on it on the site of SpaceX itself, it seemed it never had anything to do with it. It were things like: to few fuel, or a computer-glitch that caused a delay in steering, etc.
Yet...once again, it goes wrong on the drone/barge. Are they just extremely unlikely, or IS it actually so much more difficult to do on there, even when they don't give any indication of it themselves?
I think the analogy is a bit misleading here. The main point you are trying to make with your analogy, is that the drive-thru wouldn't make it 5" if 7" has 75% of the market. Which is true on itself, but it wouldn't make that decision based on the 'only' 25% share (which is quite big, actually), but because of the trouble adjusting the drive-thru, while there is no benefit whatsoever in it (since one looses the other 75%).
To make your error more clear: imagine I repeat *all* that you said in your analogy, but switch the 5" and the 7". Then your end-question becomes: "Do you build it to 7' just because some international body (and 25% marketshare) said that was the "standard" or do you recognize the REAL standard and build it to at least 5'?"
Well, yes, if you are smart, you do. that's because a 7" drive-thru will also accomodate a car that is smaller, while a 5" obviously won't do for the 7" cars. Therefor, making a 7" drive-through will be fine for 100% of the market (in the given example), with minimal extra costs for the owner. One would be a complete fool to not do it.
Thus, as one can see, the answer to your question isn't really based on what standard is being proclaimed, but by who you give the 7" too, and the possible benefit one would get if you make your drive-tru bigger or smaller.
In ALL cases (as long as it's worth it), the 7" one would be preferred, so the analogy doesn't really say anything about what's better: to choose a set standard, or the 'real' standard.
In fact, with the browser(s) it's mostly the same as what I said; websites that can adapt their website to accommodate both browsers, would be foolish not to do so. And, exept for some special cases, most websites DO support them. Will webmasters make their site ONLY available for IE, if they can make it available to firefox too and gain another 25%? I very much doubt it.
Your analogy only works if you accept the premise it's 'IE-cars' that has the 7" (but that's arbitrarily chosen), and that it is impossible for the drive-thru builder to accommodate for cars of 5" and 7" of clearance.
Both premises are, when compared with browsers, highly doubtful to be true, and thus the analogy fails due to those differences.
first post?
Anyway, it's not "giving" it away, if they ask 25 million for it...
I, for one, welcome our new cybernetic-cockroaches Overlords!
Yeah, I know: I should have gotten a +8 ;-)
This argument is also known as the "OMG! Thinkofthechildren!"-argument.
I'm always struck by the inherent hypocrisy of it. At the same time, I believe people should be able to raise their kids as they see fit (at least, to a large degree), and the government shouldn't come into the picture anyway.
I guess the best solution would be to be involved with your children, talk to them about certain things on the internet, and if necessary, show your disapproval of certain things... but leave them SOME choice, even when you have the tendency to block all of it.
Because, let's be frank: WHO didn't start to get to know about "it" when they still were kids. I remember - in my days when the Net wasn't around - in the school some kid or another brought a Playboy with him, and we were all watching with big eyes what was in it. It's just the way things go; one learns about these things BEFORE one gets 18, and well...we all know how; by watching it 'under the radar' of parents and the like. Why? Heck, because we knew they would 'censor' it if they could - even if they themselves learned it the same way.
This never-ending cycle of hypocrisy is what bothers me the most. People constantly get in the 'savethechildren'-mode, conveniently forgetting - every damn generation - that they did JUST the same, and it was that way they got to know about it.
Of course, you have exceptions; like in China, where a married copple of over 20 didn't even know how the basic things. And I'm sure in the ever-more prude USA things are also really getting hysterically absurd in this regard...But the fact is, it's just a normal way of getting to know about it. The 'prudeness'-hysteria (including censorship) is doing more harm than good, sometimes.
Yes, yes: the net has also some extreme stuff, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. But by some people, that line is drawn pretty damn hypocritical. And the self-appointed 'childsavers' have their field day because of it; exaggerations abound to scare people into thinking the only possible response is censorship. Sometimes to the detriment of a more objective truth. The 'the net is full of porn where our kids just happen to stumble upon and were traumatised by it' is one example of such utter BS. Sure, that can happen, but the truth is, especially for teenagers, for 90%, when they come at 'dirty' sites, it's because they were *looking* for it.
*gasp*
Well, yes...in our time, we went looking to get our hands on Playboys and the like, nowadays, they search the net for it. Heck, if the Net had existed back then, I'm pretty sure I would have been trying to peep on those sites too. Is there any dude here (prude USA'ers not counted) that can claim he wouldn't have done the same?
(ok, I know that such a question begs smart-ass remarks, but the point is; I think we all know the majority of guys would just do the same if they were a kid. Why try to censor something you did (or would have done) the same? Unless one deems himself traumatised by those experiences, it just doesn't make sense to have such a holier-than-thee approach, knowing it's actually not true and hypocrite.)
I think there are better options than bland censoring or forbidding youngsters to look for 'it'. It never really helps anyway.
"I believe that what Slashdot readers truly dislike are bad patents, not software patents per se."
Ermmm....no. We dislike and, actually, hate softwarepatents, period.
"Oh, sure, I do that myself actually. But I don't know how useful the stuff I make in my spare time is, and since my bank account doesn't know either there's a limit on how much time I can spend on it -- regardless of how useful it actually is."
;-)
Well, I don't know how useful the stuff you make is neither.
That said, an OS/project like Linux already demonstrated it's usefulnes. Just as with the 'many minor sponsors', you also have the 'many minor time-spendings to make something', I guess. Even pretty large and complex things (such as Linux) can be made by a relative limited timespending each day/week, if enough people are working on it. In that respect, the limited time you, as an individual, spend on it does not lead to a limiation of the product in question, as long as enough other individuals spend their limited time on it.
It is my belief that, if a product is popular enough - say, it from the moment it has 5 developers and 10000 users or something like that, it can sustain itself indifinately by the mere 'fractions of time' those people invest in it.
"Cool, I didn't know they did that. Maybe that is the best option, and we just need to reduce the overhead of actually making donations (need to specifically set up a account with a micropayment service, after finding a service that you actually trust and that the project uses, etc...). I mean, I don't have a paypal account (and I'm not sure I really trust them enough to want one anyway), most projects probably can't take credit cards, that one online payment service (e-gold or something?) got shut down for working too well..."
I think there is a need on a world-wide (or at least continent-wide) easy way for all people (including students!) to be able to pay small amounts. Something like a pre-paid card for a cell-phone - but then for the internet. It's beyond me why nobody came up with a succesful product like that.
"At the same time, how is it possible to produce those works if you need to spend your time producing something salable so that you can eat? Somebody needs to pay you for something, and the most effective way we've figured out to do that seems to be to restrict availability of what you produce to only those who can pay you for it."
;-)) as a whole, the market rules, and people pay for products they want. But it must be said that the cost for a product consist of the material, and the time/work one put in it. In this respect, digital 'products' are something outside the normal. (And, in extension, all 'IP' is.) The cost of material there is...well, none. One DOES put time/work in it - in the ORIGINAL, but that is often not in comparison to the number of digital copies that can be made. After the original, the time/work that one puts in it, is virtually nothing.
Though I do not doubt that for some (high-cost) things it would cause problems, as a general statement, there are a few answers to your question.
First of, let's not make a false dillemma; it's not a matter of all the time devoted to produce those works, or all the time devoted towards something that earns money - at least, not necessarily. One can, for instance, have another job that earns you money, and create 'art' works (or whatever) as an aside. While time is limited, it's seldom limited to the point where one has absolutely NO time left to do something else than 'work for a living'.
Secondly, while it's not always possible to have one major mecenas (as was the case in the middle ages, often), the internet also provides the possibility (at least, potentially) to have micro-payments. So, instead of one big sponsor, one can have several minor ones. As long as your product is popular, I think there is a definite chance of that. (As an example; see Freenet; it's paying a full time devl for several years now, just by what people donate to the project.)
Secondly; your assertation at the end is false. There have been examples enough where people did not need to pay for something (well, unless one goes into semantics and conclude that only the sun rises for free). It's not an absolute necessity; though of course, in our capitalistic society (which I agree works much better than a communistic one
But a link is ultimately a reference. That would mean, that giving a reference of an activity that one *knows* is illegal, is illegal on itself. If consistently applied, than giving you an address in the netherlands where you can get weed, and knowing this is illegal (in your country, for arguments' sake, I mean) would become illegal too.
This seems rather absurd, and a direct infringement on free speech. There ought to be (and in many countries there is) a difference between an illegal activity and giving a reference of such an illegal activity. As another poster already linked; some countries (like Spain) have already decided it IS legal to have links to sites which host illegal content.
"Of course you know me: we had a long exchange about the moral implications of non-scarcity of intellectual works, remember?"
;-)
Ah, yes...that does ring a bell...somewhere. We never did come to a mutual satisfactional conclusion, but the conversation was interesting. No doubt, on slashdot the topic will come up again, and we'll be able to continue.
You have a better memory than me, it seems (though 'knowing someone' is a bit vague, online).
But of course, I don't know the specifics of this case, so I really can't comment directly on it. I just thought it was a bit strange, in the context of 'linux ready for the desktop', that one would be recommended to have a win OS ready.
"I'm using it as my main desktop OS right now, so if it isn't ready, what is missing?"
Well, easy installment of not-common applications, for one. Being able to run most games another one.
I agree that 'running' the OS is doable, and nowadays, even running the more common applications (to browse, to mail, to type a letter,..) is no problem anymore. BTW, I know the whole discussion about 'it's the developers fault (or the creators of the drivers) that games can't play etc....but the fact remains it's far more difficult on Linux. And I also agree that some of it is due to not being familiar with the OS. *But* I think it's also objectively more difficult (still).
Let me give you a real example that I encountered myself. When I first installed one of the earlier versions of Mandrake Linux (one of the first times I tried linux), I was quite surprised how well it installed (compared to another time I tried to install a corel linux version which totally borked my computer). All hardware was recognized, and I didn't have any problems with my sound or anything. On itself, that could be considered 'ready'.
But...then I wanted to install the operabrowser on it. Now, I had done the same with my windows box (win2000) and there I went to the site, downloadsection, clicked on the exe, and it installed itself, and I could use it. Total time: a few minutes.
With the mandrake box, I tried the same. Alas, the only browser installed was the one of KDE, and there was something wrong with it: all letters were unbelievably small and the layout of webpages was completely screwed. I tried for two hours to get it right (with browser-settings, then with fonts/etc. settings of the OS itself, etc. Nothing helped. I decided to update the browser, but this was difficult, because one has to be able to *see* the page in the first place (there wasn't yet an autoupdate of it, back then). After 3 hours, I managed to have a browser with which to work. I went to the operasite...hmmm...where is the linux version? After 10 minutes, I found it (was in some other part of the site). I open the page...whoa! Instead of one exe (or equivalent), there were a dozen of linux-installerish-things on that page! What do I use?! Another 15 minutes to look around...gather I needed an rpm. Ok, I download the rpm...try to install it, but to no avail. Another half hour to try things, but then I find out Mandrake uses rpm, alright, but there are different rpms! Ok, looked at what rpm it could be. Luckily, there were only two, and I just tried the other one. Ok, now installation started ok...but then...error, dependency this and that and library this and that was missing to run it properly.
I was like: what the-? Ok, again searched for hours to try to find the things missing, and ultimately I succeeded in running the operabrowser properly...after spending most of the day on it...
Now, granted, things would have been much faster if I had been familiar with the OS, but still...why didn't it came with the KDE-browser perfectly working, out of the box? why are there a whole plethora of different versions who are incompatible with eachother? why can't I just 'click and install and run' as in windows? Why do I get interdependencies and why do I have to search for libraries?
Even if I knew the OS well, it still points to a less user-friendly concept then windows is. And it's all good and well I'm a tinkerer myself and wanted to try out Linux. But, really, imagine Joe Doe - who even has no idea what the command line of windows is about - using Linux back then and wants to install the operabrowser? You can surely see what would happen: after half an hour he would get so frustrated that he would go back to his windows puter. Most users do not want to tinker or search; they want just to click&install&run.
Now, by now, things have much improved with the OS, the internal browsers (firefox is pretty well known and user friendly), and the opera-browser, no doubt. And a whole bunch of commonly used applications are as well, w
While I don't want to pick sides here (I don't know the guy - he can well have been obnoxious, as you say) what you said DOES in fact point more towards the 'linux isn't ready for the desktop yet' then the opposite. The fact that you expect somebody to have a windows OS ready in case the Ubuntu one screws up inherently implies it's not up to par. I doubt people from MS would advice to have an ubuntu OS ready in case installing their OS fails.
I myself had troubles installing Ubuntu too (though, it was the former version, not the latest one). On the other hand, I never had trouble with a win version, as yet (even though my first one was win95). That said, I never had trouble with installing Mandrake Linux (as it was called, back then), so I'm not claiming Linux is impossible to install. But it must be said it's more difficult to use then windows. not for the Linux-expert, of course. And strangely enough, also not for the grandmother who just wants to surf and email a bit (linux has improved enough for that)...no, it's what I would call the 'power-users' who *aren't linux-experts who can't really do much with it.
They want MORE than just surfing or the normal application-stuff; they want to install and try out a whole plethora of new, sometimes rather obscure programs and applications - and it's a pain in the ass if you want to run them on linux - if it's possible at all.
Yeah, that's a big consolation when they decide to bomb! ;-)
Even if I say so myself. ;-)
But...yeah, I know it's not going to happen: too many bible-belt USA-dudes on slashdot for that. But at least they could place it under 'flamebait', then.
Make a joke about anything you want - but not about the Bible, God and Jesus! Meh.
Let me be *really* off topic now: ever noticed that, if the bible-belt twits got their way, they would be giving out fatwas of their own? There isn't really THAT much difference between fundamentalist moslims and fundamentalist christians.
Now, thus, it turns out Jesus was just a hippy under high voltage! That would explain not only his water-walking, but also the aureole he's always depicted with.
I *am* Japanese Klusty, you insensitive clod!
Gero-gero hafu-gaijin!
This is vely intelesting! Vely!
Doshte nobody invented befole, I don't know! Cullently I'm using baka velsion online; it wolks pelfectly!
Next in line: the WiiMax.
Our normal traintechnology is 200 years old. ;-)
30 years isn't really all that much, especially with (as a whole) little R&D funds and investments. The hydrogen engine is also 30 years, and faces the same problems as you describe in competing with the established petrol-engines (and the infrastructure has to be laid down and will cost hugely too). Yet, in any common understood sense, people would agree it's a new technology (e.g. at the start of it's potential and development). Nuclear fusion development has been around for more then 50 years, yet few would deny it's a new technology. 'New' doesn't necessarily means just discovered, but rather new in comparison with the old technology, and with more potential (technically spoken, ofcourse; it's always hard to predict economic potential, certainly when it has to compete against an already established market).
Furthermore, the tracks are so expensive largely due to the cooling system needed for the superconducting magnets. It already went down from the first cooling-systems which had to have extremely low temperatures, but still a cooling system is still needed. Breakthroughs in new systems, or in high-temperature superconducting material might cut the costs substantially. This, however, needs large investments in R&D. Forking is only needed when it's truly needed, and that depends on the tracks (and the goals) you want to go. Obviously, a maglev will not be used to bring you to every backwater-peasant village with a station in europe. But, regardless, there are maglevsystems that allow you to switch/fork just fine. The 'worse comfort' level is nowhere to be seen or heard by commuters that actually took such a train. Most describe the ride as extremely smooth. The pull&push of the magnets are probably going fast or smooth enough not to cause any discomfort, but I'll tell you when I've tried it myself.
Except for the new infrastructure, I don't see any of your objections as really an instant-killer of the technology, not even an economic success. The new infrastructure is more difficult to overcome, just as it's a major problem with getting momentum for hydrogencars (a bit of a chicken and egg problem). but it's not unsurmountable. And, depending on your goal, it's maybe not necessary. Contrary to you, I do not believe its future is only in short distant transport; one of the key features of a maglev is it's potential for high speeds. Research has shown it not beyond possible to reach more then 900km/h with a maglev; far more then is possible with current trainsystems. As for energy efficiency; needless to say that continued research would lead to more efficiency here too - not all such efficiency has to come from wheels and brakes, after all.
I think, if research was adequately funded, most of your objections would find a technical solution pretty soon (if not already). The new infrastructure would be a severe economical problem, true...certainly if you envisage a complete replacement of all traintracks that exist now. But I personally believe that it has more potential benefits for long-distance, high-commuting destinations. For instance, a network of maglev-tracks directly connecting all the capitals of the European countries, for instance. In that way, they would be a competitor for airplanes, and a maglev would still be more energy efficient then an airplane, even with the current level of efficiency.
Some of this is always a bit of speculation, of course, but there is, IMHO, not an intrinsic reason why a maglev wouldn't turn out to be superior then anything we have today.
"Except no one will ride it."
I would. you might be right that it wouldn't be popular among the normal commuters (not at 3x the normal price, anyway), but I've never been an a maglev, and would like to try it once.
So...maybe you should see it as a touristic attraction.
Ofcourse, you're probably right with the rest of your analysis. And indeed, it will probably cost 5 billion, if they predict 2.6 - those over-budget things happen a lot, with huge projects.
That said, a small remark, though. When I see the argument 'current TGV trains can go almost as fast as maglevs, for far less money'...well, true, in a way. But that's NOW, and that's when our current state of investment is pretty low, just because of the arguments you brought up. But, the old trainsystem can only be optimized in a relatively small way anymore: it's more of a technical 'polishing' and optimizing...but at the end, no drastic improvements are possible, because it's a fully matured technology.
When the jet-engine for airplanes was first build, they weren't all that faster then the old, matured and optimized classical engines neither. And they were costing a lot more, and were (are) more expensive in maintainance. If people then would have said; well, just let us continue the old way and optimize our current engines a bit further, the technology for the jet engine wouldn't be where it is today. It has proven to be a superior product in many respects by now. Maybe the same can be said of the maglev-development. Sure, it's more expensive to buy and to maintain, and it's currently not all that much faster than an ordinary high-speed train - but it's a NEW technology. That doesn't just mean it's more 'sexy', it also means it's at the beginning of its potential, not at the end, like our current, matured train-technologies.
It's often worth to give a novel technology a shot, even, certainly in the beginning, it doesn't seem all that better and is often more expensive. Fighting against an established market/technology can be very difficult, but it can have its advantages in the long term too.
Well, I *did* find 'cromulent' on online dictionaries. ;-)
You're missing the point.? I'm not saying they are angels. I'm actually pretty in agreement with you that the things you say are likely.
But firstly, you have to give the benefit of the doubt, as long as you're not absolutely sure. And most importantly: it doesn't matter how THEY behaved, I'm talking about how we should behave. Giving 'notification' on a forum is just crappy. The real notification happened on the 11th. They sued a week later; in my opinion, that's too few, too fast, if you're goal is to give the company the opportunity to make a decision about keeping the code (or not) and settle things (or not).
I would find it reasonable (regardless of the perceived 'evilness' of the company) to send a proper notification (as they did the 11th), wait 10 days - possibly give a phonecall, give another official notfication, wait another 10 days - possibly with another phonecall, THEN sue them if they don't react.
That would amount to 17 days (about the same as it was now), but with two clear official notification, two possible phonecalls, and enough time for them to react AFTER they received a proper warning.
I'm well aware that you might have another opinion on this issue...but, well, opinions differ. Personally, I think the whole period of the 'forum-warning' doesn't really count. And that the period between the official notification and the time they sued is too short. The goal isn't suing, after all; it's to make them comply. What I describe isn't THAT difficult or unreasonable to do, before going the legal way.
"Do you drive?"
No.
"People who are pro[driving] basically say it's worth to have a few innocent deaths if it means we can keep driving cars around. Do you "find this argumentation absurd, and hypocrite"?"
If there would be a viable alternative that deals with their mobility: Yes.
"If YOU were the one facing death when being innocent, would you still promote the death-penalty?
Yes."
Well, at least you would be consistent, to which I applaud you. But forgive me for being a bit skeptic until the time you would actually be in that situation. To be prepared to unjustly die for your preference for the death-penalty (instead of life-long imprisonment) seems a bit *too* martyresque. Certainly, if I were to be imprisoned unjustly and they would say: it's that, or all the criminals go free, I might be inclined to accept it...if those were truly the only conditions to choose from. If some other reasonable alternatyive would exist to choose from, however, I would choose that. It strikes me as a form of zealotry that you would prefer to keep the death penalty, even when facing an unjust death, when there is a ready available alternative, which is used in practically all the rest of the world. It makes sense to protect others even with your death if that's the only choice. It's rather fundamentalist in nature if you want to die just to be sure some real criminals are put to death too.
"As a minority, there are openings available to a black man that a white man can not even apply for. So, I'd say the black man... IF he bothers to look for a job."
Theoretical bullocks. Whatever legal openings there are, they can't fight an employer who doesn't want blacks. And if you refer to 'positive discrimination': that's an oxymoron.
"Firstly, you assume the crimes are the same when they may not actually be."
I don't assume anything. there was a paper made on this issue, and *they* said it. Ok, not 'the same' (obviously, it can never be exactly the same); but for 'similar' crimes. Whether or not they are the same, statistically speaking, that doesn't matter, unless you argue that somehow, black people always do more and worse than white people when committing a crime.
"Second, you assume there is no context. (Person A may go quietly when arrested, Person B may fight and get charged with Resisting Arrest. When they get sentenced, Person B, as more of a danger than Person A, gets a longer sentence.)"
So you assume black people and hispanics are consistently more resisting arrest, fighting, being a danger, etc. then white people? Have you anything to back that up? And is it impossible that they are being a bit harder targeted than white people *by* the police? Or do you claim there is no racism with the police neither?
"Third, you assume no history. A person with a history of other offenses will naturally get a longer sentence for 'the same crime' as a first-time offender."
As far as I can remember the codnitions were similar too.
I can't find the paper back online, but I did find this: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:X2eXQ5_-MNYJ:www.scienceblog.com/cms/blacks-who-kill-whites-are-most-likely-be-executed-13844.html+sentences+for+blacks+and+white+people&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=be
Now, regardless of all the different factors that may or may not come into play (and I do agree other factors do play a role too), your staunch refusal to acknowledge that race may, indeed, also be a factor of importance, is a bit astonishing.
You forgot to agree that we disagree! ;-)
I think we'll always be talking aside eachother in this matter. You follow the technical stance, I follow the ethical stance.
According to you, there is no ethical problem, because copyright handles copyright, and nothing else. According to me, there IS an ethical issue, regardless of her legal right to do as she did. You say: it could be used if it didn't involve her likeness...so you actually acknowledge it DOES restrict the use of her CC'ed pic further. You don't see that as a problem, because it's derived from another law. I do see that as an (ethical) problem, because that means that *in practise* it limits the use of that pic under the CC she agreed to. What's more; in this case, it only limits it if you make active use of that other law.
Imagine there is a law there that gives you the right to forbid the use of recognizable faces, period. Sure, it doesn't affect the CC licence on itself....but it *does* in reality, doesn't it; one can't use it freely anymore if a face is on it. I would argue that those who agree that their pic can be used (without stating any further conditions), should not use that other law - EVEN if their face is on it. In my view, it doesn't matter if they officially waived that right, or if the CC says you keep all your additional rights...well, duh; of course they do, they can't supercede the laws of a country in any case, so such a claim would be futile. But as a human and in regard to following the spirit of the CC, they would still be lamers, for using that law.
Why? Because I think you have to adhere to the spirit of what you agreed too, not to the (legal) letter. You may be of the opinion they still adhere to the spirit of things if they sue somebody based on other laws, even if that means (in practise) a restriction on the use of their CC'ed work, but I don't.
Meh. Let's leave it at that. It's getting more about (very subjective) opinions, and those debates are fruitless. If it's of any consolation, I agree with you on all the facts and legal stance and arguments you've made. I just think they are wankers because, IMHO, they're deliberately restricting or even making works under the CC useless by invoking other laws - a CC they agreed to themselves in the first place.
But they have the legal right to be wankers and crybabies.