I would add necessary step between steps 5 and 6: building another big wheel type space station in Mars orbit or, even better, building it in a Lagrange point near Earth, then pushing it up to Mars orbit.
The point is that, logistically, we need to develop space traffic infrastructure (and supplies storage) outside of gravity wells first, then work out the problem of establishing routine connections between planets' surfaces and respective local orbital ports.
First step is certainly one grand orbital spaceport with large warehouse in Earth orbit. Then, we can do same in Moon orbit, then Mars,... once we have the system of suppling orbital relay bases working flawlessly, we'll be ready to support surface bases.
IMHO colonizing planets shouldn't be our primary goal. Instead, self-sustainability of extra-terrestrial industry should - perhaps mining easily accessible materials useful for fuel (reactive propellant) or construction material, found on small, low gravity celestial bodies such as asteroids, or planets' moons, could power our zero-G "empire" and remove necessity of heavy lifting all of the supplies up from the bottom of Earth's gravity well.
To do that, we need production technologies for producing solar electric panels and nanostructure materials (fabric, for solar sails and inflatable modules, lightweight but strong rigid construction elements,...) from raw materials in space, that work in low gravity, high vacuum, high radiation environment, and it needs to be fully automatic - without need for constant human supervision.
Component by component, part by part, everything needed in space must eventually be producible up there.
So if she takes on her donor's immune system, how does that prevent her from rejecting her own body tissues?
Generally, it is very concerning issue. In this special case, however, it has no such grave consequences:
Think about it in inverse aspect: She has an un-intrusive blood type, O-, universal donor. None of the known immune systems would have any objection to her tissue, so when you "install" different, O+ (or for that matter any, e.g. even AB+) immune system to her, it is like if you transplanted all those O- tissues into O+ organism, i.e. there's no conflict.
But, she would had been in a lot of trouble if it was any different, say if she was A+ and got the same, compatible for all we know, O+ liver transplant and this immune system change happened.
In conclusion, transplantation has suddenly become more complicated then formerly deemed. Exact blood type match is safe, everything else is risky.
Obvious one true solution is to separate two seemingly same, but different by usage, functions of timekeeping (i.e. daily activities synchronizer, navigation aid, "commercial time") and that of precise interval measuring.
Timekeeping function, or perhaps even wall clock base frequency steering should be responsibility of centralized (national, regional, global) authority, for obvious reasons. Or, if we can predict the "speed of clock time" in advance, then those timepieces without contact with time-of-day broadcast stations could calculate and adjust their pace as they go, according to said predictions and internal stable time base.
Obviously, these clocks would then internally consist of two clocks with separate time bases (one stable, one steered) and a computer with stored, amendable calculation program, in order to be able to make easy corrections.
Another consequence would be the duality of calendar time: one rigid, stable, "true" time (fraction of)second counter without explicit minutes, hours, days, months, years,... with origin time defined by some easily date-able event (or even arbitrarily set by bringing multiple atomic clocks into sync) and one "practical" (dynamically kept in accordance with Earth's Rotation and Revolution, e.g. "ERR time").
Each time usage should be carefully examined and appropriate time should apply. If particular application can absorb variations of "ERR time", than it should use that one. However, if high precision is essential (e.g. in scientific applications, sport results, measuring other physical quantities by measuring equivalent time), then "true time" should be used.
In order to keep things simple and avoid massive unnecessary losses and equipment obsolescence, present stable time base clock/calendars could be kept in use, with their owners' or operators' duty to periodically (in legally codified intervals) control and adjust them in accordance with publicly known, official, "ERR time", so that there is never discrepancy greater then half of ("true time") second.
(1) The volume of the earths oceans is enough that if we were destroying water in them at the rate at which we burn oil, it would take a few hundred million years to run out. We wouldn't be destroying it at that rate (I would guess, since you can make a lot of hydrogen from just a little water), but even if we were we have a while to figure out a solution.
Thank you for your comment, because I had (and voiced here previously) concerns on new technology trend that could leave our ecosystem robbed of water and with too high oxygen level after a while.
(2) Hydrogen and ozone react really well -- the hydrogen wouldn't make it out of the atmosphere before it got bound back up as water.
The down side of (2) is that we could damage the ozone layer with leaked hydrogen (http://gcep.stanford.edu/research/factsheets/effects_climate.html)
Hmm, does that also mean that we could "treat" low-altitude ozone (photochemical smog) pollution by releasing small amounts (controlled concentration to avoid build up and explosions) of hydrogen near the sources (photocopier/laser printer rooms, arcing electric machinery, streets with high traffic) or near "victims" (into our immediate environment, e.g. rooms, offices, etc.)?
Which strand? The anchor strands one can clearly see or the capture strands? Which species of spider? And of course, I live in an area where the only spiders are taratulas you insensitive clod!
I see... the nature doesn't provide enough precision (or nothing at all). Then I propose strands of industrial artificial material(such as, i.e, lycra, used for ladies stockings) assorted by their width. You can have samples made into microscope slides (you can have free strands too), students can see them through with naked eye first, and then again under various magnification factors.
I consider corrosion leading to failure of all three cables at the very same moment extremely improbable - these would fail one by one, perhaps even giving a clue for troubleshooting.
Ditto for power monitors, or any other component, as I was claiming all along and you denied all along, pulling out of... some hypothetic simultaneous power monitor failures! Oh, but now when it serves the purpose of restoring your initial proposition back into its intact state (so that you could claim a "100% win" in an argument), all of the sudden you see simultaneous faults are "extremely improbable"!
Sorry, but you just blew your cover and I can't continue this argument any longer. I wasted my time on a troll.:(
I understood you clearly, no worries. The scenario you proposed first was favorable for my proposed configuration, because faults were introduced in different "links" in the "chain". As I proposed redundancy for each link, my system survived easily with minimal damage and uninterrupted. My proposal is valid for single fault per "link" scenarios and I don't claim anything further.
Now you are introducing two simultaneous faults on same level in reliability graph. However, your new scenario is improbable. It would be more probable for one, or two computers to fail (they are more complex and have high switching rate) then an event in which two power monitors would fail (while one power monitor would miraculously survive) simultaneously. You claim I fried three computers, but is your single remaining computer capable of working alone in redundant configuration? You don't seem to bother with method of "merging" their outputs toward actuators. What if you need to have at least two of them to agree in order to "drive"? Besides, permanent PWR OK is definitely more deadly then permanent PWR FAIL, so given the choice, one would always design power monitor in such way that former is less probable and in case of catastrophic failure power monitor should die with PWR FAIL forever.
High reliability through redundancy deals with known (or predicted) probabilities of random events. If you allow for simultaneous failure of two power monitors, I can claim that it is then quite possible that there is some correlation between that two incidents (perhaps a common cause behind them) and that it means ALL of power monitors could succumb to whatever is killing them, no matter how many of them we put in. Then of course, we would have to deal with that particular failure cause and fend it off by designing power monitors accordingly.
In fact, having said that, it appeared to me that both mine and your proposition would have had failed just as original one did, exactly because of systematic problem in the design: contact in connector carrying PWR OK signal was wet and corroded, it would probably happen in each separate cable as well, regardless of how many of them we provide in "back up". They are a weak link, a sure weak link. That's why I have to give you a credit in the end: If each computer box had power monitor on board (basically, it is what you proposed, but with power monitors on opposite side of wiring then what they have) and there were only power (considerable current bearing) conductors between power supply and each of the boxes, the contacts probably wouldn't fail like the signal ones did, because they would carry larger current.
Impossible situation? Why, then, are there three systems installed?
Back then when I had been taught high rel. computer systems, three was the minimum for a simple "voting" configuration. Consequently, it can bear with single failure at a time, only. For multiple failures, you need to go up to 2 * number_of_simultaneous_failures_anticipated + 1 configuration. As long as there is more functioning then failed units, it will keep on working.
Besides, the designers there were a bit paranoid and made such design choice that failure of the wire is interpreted as power failure.
That's why, in your scenario, one of your computers would be toast and one permanently blocked, but all of my computers would survive and recover from powerdown, because during the surge one line would give false alarm, one would give true alarm and one would be silent ("power OK") because of the monitor failure. When surge passes, one line (corroded one) would stay in alarm, one would remain "power OK" (failed monitor) and one would signalize true "power OK", which would put computers back on line. OK, I agree I had more luck then smarts there, because you picked wrong scenario to illustrate your point (if power monitor failed in "constant alarm" instead of "constant OK" it would block ONE of my computers... because I proposed 3*3 wires, remember?), but it is usually thought that corrective actions would be carried out as soon as single failure happens and that it is not generally expected that multiple failures strike simultaneously. ISS is manned all year around, so there is staff that should be able to repair the fault (and they did, sooner or later).
IMHO, most frequent design error is overseeing a single point of failure, taking it for granted that it would "just work" because it is some simple part such as wire, connection point, etc. In designers' defense, they probably consulted reliability sheets in their work and decided to "emphasize" those components that have lower anticipated MTBF because of their high complexity (like, computer boxes). Those components at end of ascending MTBF list are probably ruled "noncritical". However, a little paranoia never killed anybody (except some other guy).
If designed properly, there should have been three such systems, each independent on each other, incl. signalling wires. In such situation, failure of one of these systems would switch off one of the computers only.
Wrong!
If designed properly, there should have been three such systems, each independent on each other, incl. signaling wires. Each computer should have had three inputs, one from each power monitor and switch off only if at least two of them signalize fault condition. In such situation, failure of one of these systems would switch off neither one of the computers and they would had been able to detect and report the failure.
the sensors and micro-vibratey-motors should be cheap enough these days.:)
I would pick some small piezo-buzzers over micro-motors, perhaps i.e. Kynar foil patches, if they can output (usual application is in sensors) useful amplitude.
Most anyone can hear if there are nearby walls - I can (if they are on the ears level of course). It puzzles me how that kid could hear short objects on the ground such as trashcan.
Quite a lot cheaper and simpler than some high tech gizmo, but I suppose not everyone could adapt quite as well as that kid did.
There are people such as Helen Keller was, who can't neither see nor hear and would have no other option (except for the cane) but this proximity-to-haptic tech. Now when I think about it...could they also "hear" through sound-to-haptic converter? What is the limit of information transfer bandwidth for this sense? How good we can get in resolving little differences in vibration frequency and amplitude, or difference in both between two (or multiple) places on our body?
Back to "hearing sight", perhaps external sensors could aid in training it, but the input should recreate or amplify the sounds which normally reach subject's ears, then gradually fade the boost, as training progresses. First train recognition, then train low-input detection. I too think it is a cool skill to acquire, even necessary if you can't see or are in some "shady business" career, or just want to expand your survival abilities for whatever paranoid or real reasons.
...features just above ground level, such as curbs and stairs.
Then this sensory aid should be mounted on the shins, set to observe forward\downward slope.
In anecdotal evidence (as well as my own experience) contactless "feel" of objects in total darkness is most desirable in your hands and fingertips, or there goes the flask, glass, lamp, heavy loose objects leaned on the wall...with lots of noise in the middle of the night, of course. After all in the dark we do wave hands in front of us to explore surroundings.
All things considered, this sensor type seems like a cool idea.
We shouldn't use pirated material either. It is a TRAP. As long as we are attached to them and as long as they can hope to (theoretically) pull their "lost sale" money back, they will be on pursuit and throw the "piracy!" cry in the face of legislators, justice and police.
That is not what we need. We don't need them victimized, we need them humbled. We need to show that we don't need them, at least not need them as much as we need our freedoms.
In limited circumstances--movies, music, Windows, and more--there are monopolies or cartels that make it much harder to switch away. Yes, there is a lot of music outside the control of the RIAA, but it's not what you tend to hear when you turn your radio on in the car and that's what people are going to want. It's also not a real replacement; if I want a song by an artist from a major record label I have to play by their rules, a song by a random indy artist isn't the same thing. (It may be better or worse or even the same level of enjoyment, but it is not the thing I wanted.) Yes, you can install OS X or Linux or some alternate operating system, but if your applications don't run on it or you don't want to relearn things you're a bit stuck. Movies are probably the worst, in part because we've become accustomed to big-budget flicks with huge special effects that can't really be duplicated in independent films.
Well, there is no third way... either you use their stuff under their conditions, or you use some other stuff under better conditions. When one's got intestinal parasites, one needs to be on medication AND a specific diet for a while. Those MAFIAA social parasites feed on our inability to route around them and while growing stronger they use their power to re-arrange our legislation, infrastructure and even collective notion of fair/legal, unfair/criminal in their sole favor, in order to make routing around them impossible in as near future as possible. The only HOPE is in shutting their income down in serious manner and it would take global scale word-of-the mouth (because... guess who has leverage over media outlets) action to stage all-out "last warning" boycott of all of them.
They can't FORCE us to see their movies or listen to their music, and don't you forget that!
Many would wonder: Why boycott instead of just not paying them (like most of you do now)?
When you watch pirated movie or listen pirated music, you still OWE them, they just didn't get you, so they can go crying to police and politicians and demand their money taken back from you. Of course, legislators and police being unable to find you and do so, but at the same time being obliged by laws and fundamental legal principles, fall into huge moral debt to them and let them dictate and push ever more public-enslaving laws, they practically let them OWN certain technologies that are useful to all of us and as such should be at our disposal without limits. However, one month of no torrents, no movie theater-going, no CD/DVD buying/renting, not listening to the radio nor watching TV, should send clear signal that they are not IMPORTANT that much, that we CAN do without them and that thus they have no legitimacy to wield all the power they have grabbed so far. That would also send hint to politicians about public opinion on the matter.
However, next most important thing is devising a system capable of distributing content from producers to masses that would be impervious to piracy. Well, I don't think information does want anything like "to be free" but information is by definition information only if it contains something you don't already know. I may add: it is worth money only while it is still information in that sense. Therefore, it SHOULD be payed its full price on the crossing point from unknown to published and again an adequate price on each new enlarging of cycle of "initiated". First sale can be made major glamorous news event too, to heat up the demand... a little prolonged anticipation never killed anybody, besides, being first to see a new movie which is still "hot" priced is a nice self-boasting, isn't it?
One way how to do it I come up with is:
The content, a single copy of a movie, an album, a computer program (even a GPLv3-licensed program!) should be bought from producers on a single occasion, the "D-day", by highest bidder. A Contract should oblige producer (or his
That is evolution: the mold shapes the cast. Given the circumstances, development direction of the change will highlight all viable optimization scenarios, just like molten material fills all the pockets and grooves on the mold's inside surface. In real life, this "casting" is done with multitude of different materials in a mold... that varies its shape so it is altogether pretty much chaotic, but principle holds - evolution is very simple rule at work and not strictly a biological process. What I find very interesting thought is that clearly shows us the cross-scan of everything possible. For instance, since we never observed paranormal activity in nature (other species), we can pretty much discard it as either impossible, or disappointingly worthless.
Re:solar powered hovering wireless routers
on
Solar Powered Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Well, the lift is there, at least during daytime... now, for steering and staying in place strap additional solar panels and DC motors with propellers, or some kind of thermo-solar pulsejets (I don't know if such things exist already but I have some vague idea that it is doable...).
Slashdot Mirror
I would add necessary step between steps 5 and 6: building another big wheel type space station in Mars orbit or, even better, building it in a Lagrange point near Earth, then pushing it up to Mars orbit.
... once we have the system of suppling orbital relay bases working flawlessly, we'll be ready to support surface bases.
...) from raw materials in space, that work in low gravity, high vacuum, high radiation environment, and it needs to be fully automatic - without need for constant human supervision.
The point is that, logistically, we need to develop space traffic infrastructure (and supplies storage) outside of gravity wells first, then work out the problem of establishing routine connections between planets' surfaces and respective local orbital ports.
First step is certainly one grand orbital spaceport with large warehouse in Earth orbit. Then, we can do same in Moon orbit, then Mars,
IMHO colonizing planets shouldn't be our primary goal. Instead, self-sustainability of extra-terrestrial industry should - perhaps mining easily accessible materials useful for fuel (reactive propellant) or construction material, found on small, low gravity celestial bodies such as asteroids, or planets' moons, could power our zero-G "empire" and remove necessity of heavy lifting all of the supplies up from the bottom of Earth's gravity well.
To do that, we need production technologies for producing solar electric panels and nanostructure materials (fabric, for solar sails and inflatable modules, lightweight but strong rigid construction elements,
Component by component, part by part, everything needed in space must eventually be producible up there.
Think about it in inverse aspect: She has an un-intrusive blood type, O-, universal donor. None of the known immune systems would have any objection to her tissue, so when you "install" different, O+ (or for that matter any, e.g. even AB+) immune system to her, it is like if you transplanted all those O- tissues into O+ organism, i.e. there's no conflict.
But, she would had been in a lot of trouble if it was any different, say if she was A+ and got the same, compatible for all we know, O+ liver transplant and this immune system change happened.
In conclusion, transplantation has suddenly become more complicated then formerly deemed. Exact blood type match is safe, everything else is risky.
Obvious one true solution is to separate two seemingly same, but different by usage, functions of timekeeping (i.e. daily activities synchronizer, navigation aid, "commercial time") and that of precise interval measuring.
... with origin time defined by some easily date-able event (or even arbitrarily set by bringing multiple atomic clocks into sync) and one "practical" (dynamically kept in accordance with Earth's Rotation and Revolution, e.g. "ERR time").
Timekeeping function, or perhaps even wall clock base frequency steering should be responsibility of centralized (national, regional, global) authority, for obvious reasons. Or, if we can predict the "speed of clock time" in advance, then those timepieces without contact with time-of-day broadcast stations could calculate and adjust their pace as they go, according to said predictions and internal stable time base.
Obviously, these clocks would then internally consist of two clocks with separate time bases (one stable, one steered) and a computer with stored, amendable calculation program, in order to be able to make easy corrections.
Another consequence would be the duality of calendar time: one rigid, stable, "true" time (fraction of)second counter without explicit minutes, hours, days, months, years,
Each time usage should be carefully examined and appropriate time should apply. If particular application can absorb variations of "ERR time", than it should use that one. However, if high precision is essential (e.g. in scientific applications, sport results, measuring other physical quantities by measuring equivalent time), then "true time" should be used.
In order to keep things simple and avoid massive unnecessary losses and equipment obsolescence, present stable time base clock/calendars could be kept in use, with their owners' or operators' duty to periodically (in legally codified intervals) control and adjust them in accordance with publicly known, official, "ERR time", so that there is never discrepancy greater then half of ("true time") second.
Thank you for your comment, because I had (and voiced here previously) concerns on new technology trend that could leave our ecosystem robbed of water and with too high oxygen level after a while.
Hmm, does that also mean that we could "treat" low-altitude ozone (photochemical smog) pollution by releasing small amounts (controlled concentration to avoid build up and explosions) of hydrogen near the sources (photocopier/laser printer rooms, arcing electric machinery, streets with high traffic) or near "victims" (into our immediate environment, e.g. rooms, offices, etc.)?
Or GM the cats same way, too!
Ditto for power monitors, or any other component, as I was claiming all along and you denied all along, pulling out of
Sorry, but you just blew your cover and I can't continue this argument any longer. I wasted my time on a troll.
I understood you clearly, no worries. The scenario you proposed first was favorable for my proposed configuration, because faults were introduced in different "links" in the "chain". As I proposed redundancy for each link, my system survived easily with minimal damage and uninterrupted. My proposal is valid for single fault per "link" scenarios and I don't claim anything further.
Now you are introducing two simultaneous faults on same level in reliability graph. However, your new scenario is improbable. It would be more probable for one, or two computers to fail (they are more complex and have high switching rate) then an event in which two power monitors would fail (while one power monitor would miraculously survive) simultaneously. You claim I fried three computers, but is your single remaining computer capable of working alone in redundant configuration? You don't seem to bother with method of "merging" their outputs toward actuators. What if you need to have at least two of them to agree in order to "drive"? Besides, permanent PWR OK is definitely more deadly then permanent PWR FAIL, so given the choice, one would always design power monitor in such way that former is less probable and in case of catastrophic failure power monitor should die with PWR FAIL forever.
High reliability through redundancy deals with known (or predicted) probabilities of random events. If you allow for simultaneous failure of two power monitors, I can claim that it is then quite possible that there is some correlation between that two incidents (perhaps a common cause behind them) and that it means ALL of power monitors could succumb to whatever is killing them, no matter how many of them we put in. Then of course, we would have to deal with that particular failure cause and fend it off by designing power monitors accordingly.
In fact, having said that, it appeared to me that both mine and your proposition would have had failed just as original one did, exactly because of systematic problem in the design: contact in connector carrying PWR OK signal was wet and corroded, it would probably happen in each separate cable as well, regardless of how many of them we provide in "back up". They are a weak link, a sure weak link. That's why I have to give you a credit in the end: If each computer box had power monitor on board (basically, it is what you proposed, but with power monitors on opposite side of wiring then what they have) and there were only power (considerable current bearing) conductors between power supply and each of the boxes, the contacts probably wouldn't fail like the signal ones did, because they would carry larger current.
Back then when I had been taught high rel. computer systems, three was the minimum for a simple "voting" configuration. Consequently, it can bear with single failure at a time, only. For multiple failures, you need to go up to 2 * number_of_simultaneous_failures_anticipated + 1 configuration. As long as there is more functioning then failed units, it will keep on working.
Besides, the designers there were a bit paranoid and made such design choice that failure of the wire is interpreted as power failure.
That's why, in your scenario, one of your computers would be toast and one permanently blocked, but all of my computers would survive and recover from powerdown, because during the surge one line would give false alarm, one would give true alarm and one would be silent ("power OK") because of the monitor failure. When surge passes, one line (corroded one) would stay in alarm, one would remain "power OK" (failed monitor) and one would signalize true "power OK", which would put computers back on line. OK, I agree I had more luck then smarts there, because you picked wrong scenario to illustrate your point (if power monitor failed in "constant alarm" instead of "constant OK" it would block ONE of my computers... because I proposed 3*3 wires, remember?), but it is usually thought that corrective actions would be carried out as soon as single failure happens and that it is not generally expected that multiple failures strike simultaneously. ISS is manned all year around, so there is staff that should be able to repair the fault (and they did, sooner or later).
IMHO, most frequent design error is overseeing a single point of failure, taking it for granted that it would "just work" because it is some simple part such as wire, connection point, etc. In designers' defense, they probably consulted reliability sheets in their work and decided to "emphasize" those components that have lower anticipated MTBF because of their high complexity (like, computer boxes). Those components at end of ascending MTBF list are probably ruled "noncritical". However, a little paranoia never killed anybody (except some other guy).
Wrong!
If designed properly, there should have been three such systems, each independent on each other, incl. signaling wires. Each computer should have had three inputs, one from each power monitor and switch off only if at least two of them signalize fault condition. In such situation, failure of one of these systems would switch off neither one of the computers and they would had been able to detect and report the failure.
There are people such as Helen Keller was, who can't neither see nor hear and would have no other option (except for the cane) but this proximity-to-haptic tech. Now when I think about it...could they also "hear" through sound-to-haptic converter? What is the limit of information transfer bandwidth for this sense? How good we can get in resolving little differences in vibration frequency and amplitude, or difference in both between two (or multiple) places on our body?
Back to "hearing sight", perhaps external sensors could aid in training it, but the input should recreate or amplify the sounds which normally reach subject's ears, then gradually fade the boost, as training progresses. First train recognition, then train low-input detection. I too think it is a cool skill to acquire, even necessary if you can't see or are in some "shady business" career, or just want to expand your survival abilities for whatever paranoid or real reasons.
Then this sensory aid should be mounted on the shins, set to observe forward\downward slope.
In anecdotal evidence (as well as my own experience) contactless "feel" of objects in total darkness is most desirable in your hands and fingertips, or there goes the flask, glass, lamp, heavy loose objects leaned on the wall...with lots of noise in the middle of the night, of course. After all in the dark we do wave hands in front of us to explore surroundings.
All things considered, this sensor type seems like a cool idea.
You mean, Candygram...
You can mount the flywheel in gyroscope gimbals, thus decoupling it from the airframe (and you also get a gyroscope for free :P )
But, planes control their roll. Couldn't a plane be flown in horizontal flight, keeping direction, tilted toward one side?
It could only be a God-given-up Commandment but I haven't heard it actually happened.
We shouldn't use pirated material either. It is a TRAP. As long as we are attached to them and as long as they can hope to (theoretically) pull their "lost sale" money back, they will be on pursuit and throw the "piracy!" cry in the face of legislators, justice and police.
That is not what we need. We don't need them victimized, we need them humbled. We need to show that we don't need them, at least not need them as much as we need our freedoms.
Well, there is no third way... either you use their stuff under their conditions, or you use some other stuff under better conditions. When one's got intestinal parasites, one needs to be on medication AND a specific diet for a while. Those MAFIAA social parasites feed on our inability to route around them and while growing stronger they use their power to re-arrange our legislation, infrastructure and even collective notion of fair/legal, unfair/criminal in their sole favor, in order to make routing around them impossible in as near future as possible. The only HOPE is in shutting their income down in serious manner and it would take global scale word-of-the mouth (because... guess who has leverage over media outlets) action to stage all-out "last warning" boycott of all of them.
They can't FORCE us to see their movies or listen to their music, and don't you forget that!
Many would wonder: Why boycott instead of just not paying them (like most of you do now)?
When you watch pirated movie or listen pirated music, you still OWE them, they just didn't get you, so they can go crying to police and politicians and demand their money taken back from you. Of course, legislators and police being unable to find you and do so, but at the same time being obliged by laws and fundamental legal principles, fall into huge moral debt to them and let them dictate and push ever more public-enslaving laws, they practically let them OWN certain technologies that are useful to all of us and as such should be at our disposal without limits. However, one month of no torrents, no movie theater-going, no CD/DVD buying/renting, not listening to the radio nor watching TV, should send clear signal that they are not IMPORTANT that much, that we CAN do without them and that thus they have no legitimacy to wield all the power they have grabbed so far. That would also send hint to politicians about public opinion on the matter.
However, next most important thing is devising a system capable of distributing content from producers to masses that would be impervious to piracy.
Well, I don't think information does want anything like "to be free" but information is by definition information only if it contains something you don't already know. I may add: it is worth money only while it is still information in that sense. Therefore, it SHOULD be payed its full price on the crossing point from unknown to published and again an adequate price on each new enlarging of cycle of "initiated". First sale can be made major glamorous news event too, to heat up the demand... a little prolonged anticipation never killed anybody, besides, being first to see a new movie which is still "hot" priced is a nice self-boasting, isn't it?
One way how to do it I come up with is:
The content, a single copy of a movie, an album, a computer program (even a GPLv3-licensed program!) should be bought from producers on a single occasion, the "D-day", by highest bidder. A Contract should oblige producer (or his
You mean, like, all our "selfness" does is after-the-act damage control, assembling a good story, making up excuses?
That is evolution: the mold shapes the cast. Given the circumstances, development direction of the change will highlight all viable optimization scenarios, just like molten material fills all the pockets and grooves on the mold's inside surface. In real life, this "casting" is done with multitude of different materials in a mold ... that varies its shape so it is altogether pretty much chaotic, but principle holds - evolution is very simple rule at work and not strictly a biological process. What I find very interesting thought is that clearly shows us the cross-scan of everything possible. For instance, since we never observed paranormal activity in nature (other species), we can pretty much discard it as either impossible, or disappointingly worthless.
Well, the lift is there, at least during daytime... now, for steering and staying in place strap additional solar panels and DC motors with propellers, or some kind of thermo-solar pulsejets (I don't know if such things exist already but I have some vague idea that it is doable...).