So, what, you have to shove it in everyone's face?
NEWS FLASH! We don't care whether you fuck men or women. Quite frankly we don't want to know about it. That's the problem with you homosexuals. It's not the bonking other men that bothers the rest of us, as we really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. It's the flagrant attitude. You wear your homosexuality like a medal of honor. It's like walking around with a big neon sign saying, "I bang men!" Then you wonder why people are offended.
You don't see heterosexual men running around with "I bang women!" signs, do you? No, because it's unacceptable in polite society. Give it a rest already. It's nice that you're happy with your sexual encounters, but you should learn to be happy in private.
I ran a later version of C/Net on an Amiga 3000 for 3 years. 7 phone lines and 3 local terminals for my friends & I. Those were some of the best times of my life.
If the copyright owner loses a potential sale due to a violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss
No you dumb fuck, what part of "potential" don't you understand?
If I buy a lottery ticket I'm a potential winner. But I can't claim that I lost $50M when I don't win because it was never guaranteed.
Just because I (wrongfully, you claim) download a CD doesn't mean the copyright holder would have had my money. There's a third alternative: I might have just done without the CD. This is why we use the word "potential".
"Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people...
So did the buggy manufacturers. What's your point? We shouldn't help obsolete companies live just because they employ a lot of people.
Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.
Whose rules? They certainly aren't mine. From the looks of it, there are an awful lot of people who agree with me. That doesn't necessarily make it "right", but it certainly lends support to my position.
Copyright is a bullshit system built on the artificial scarcity of infinitely reproducable items. It has been so perverted beyond it's intentions by big industry that I can not, and will not, respect it. There are millions like me, and we will win, because neither you nor the **AA nor any government or other entity in the world can stop us.
On a totally unrelated note, the newspapers I've seen today are using a photo of Avril Lavigne to illustrate this tale of the plight of the poor starving musicians...
LOL! That's funny, because I went on a music strike for years. I finally relented and bought Avril's first CD after downloading that skater boy song. Without p2p I wouldn't have found her and wouldn't have bought her CD (I don't listen to the radio).
15 may not be a huge amount, but it's more than 4. So what if 95% of my mp3s are not paid for, I spend more money on music now than two years ago.
Exactly.
People are listening to music differently today. We don't listen to albums, we listen to huge playlists, genres, dates in history, etc. And nobody can afford to build that kind of a music collection if they bought it all.
I went on an 80's downloading spree a couple of years ago. Grabbed all of my favorite 80's tracks. No full albums - just various singles. I've got several hundred tracks. Assuming I had to buy all of these albums at $15 a pop, I have over $7,000 worth of music here. Now, did the music industry lose $7,000? Of course not. And they'd be fucking idiots to claim that they did. Nobody would go out and blow that kind of cash for an 80s playlist, discarding 90% of the songs because they only want 1 or 2 off each album.
Today, I could buy these off of iTunes for a buck a piece, but I won't do it due to the DRM. Remove the DRM and I'll start buying tracks. But that won't happen, so when I want a single I download it.
So, as usual, copy protection measures completely fuck the honest citizen while doing jack shit to stop the criminals.
How come you Slashdot people see this for copy protection, but not for gun control?
(And yes, if I spent $600 on Photoshop CS and found that I couldn't work with certain images because I'm presumed to be a criminal despite perfectly legitimate reasons for my actions, I call that completely fucked out of $600.)
That is exaclty what I'm arguing. Seattle is #98 in terms of density of population out of the top 100 metropolitan areas in the US.
So out of the hundreds of thousands of populated areas in the United States, Seattle ranks it at #98. That's in the upper 90% range in terms of overall population density.
Seattle is densly populated whether you like it or not. You can't simply measure it against the top 1% and say, "Oh, it's not dense. Look, there are 97 areas here that are even denser." You have to measure it as a whole. And as a whole, it's a very dense place, filled with dense people (did I just say that?).
So when do we start throwing the virgins in?... I think some Slashdotters better watch out o_O.
Technically, I know jacking off has nothing to do with losing one's virginity, but when you do it six times a day with inflatable dolls and the occasional sheep, can you morally claim to be a virgin? For that matter, would the volcano gods accept you?
and even then population density in the Seattle area is well below that of any place south of San Francisco on the California coast or north of Arlington, on the Eastern seaboard, all the way to Boston or so.
So? He didn't say "the most densly populated." Are you arguing that Seattle isn't densly populated?
Where's the e-judge? A non-bribable A.I. would go a long way toward achieving proper justice in this country... Bonus points if it's capable of throwing the book (literally or figuratively, I don't care which) at both clients and lawyers bringing stupid lawsuits.
There are short patches of freeway where you might not see a line for ~1 second at normal freeway speeds. The system can deal with that by keeping the steering in it's previous position and correcting as soon as the line is encountered again. If another line is NOT encountered within x time/distance, the system should shut itself down and warn the driver to take immediate control of the vehicle.
What about construction areas? Places where half the road is being paved and the other half isn't?
You don't engage the system then. This is like a cruise control: You turn it on when needed and when it's safe to do so.
What will be done about animals such as deer that run into the road? Sure they could be detected on straighter roads, but what about around curves?
Uhm, can YOU detect an animal around curves? No? So how is this worse than what we have now?
A good radar/camera system would see the animal long before a human would in any condition. So this is infinitely better.
and, say, someone in the car didn't have their seatbelt on(you can't say everyone keeps their seatbelts on during long enough drives)..
In most states, having your seatbelt on is the law. If you don't have your seatbelt on, it's your own stupid fault. But this is why I mentioned lawyers being the reason automated driving won't happen - because, even though everyone knows the moron who wasn't wearing the seatbelt has nobody but himself to blame, the lawyers will wretch billions from the corporation that developed the system in various lawsuits anyway.
You're over simplifying a bit. Simple things like cameras that watch for lines on the road fail pretty easily if the road is covered by, for example, snow or rain. Before this is feasible it needs to be absolutely bulletproof. People's live are literally riding on it.
If the system isn't seeing the lines properly, it encounters a fault condition and turns itself off, prompting the driver to take control. This would be up to the driver: You wouldn't engage cruise control while going down an icy road, and neither would you engage auto-drive while cruising in slippery/snowy conditions (and if you tried, it would know that it can't operate properly and shut itself right back off).
Imagine a computerised car was involved in a similar accident. The damages against the company that built it would doubtless be _far_ higher. We seem willing to tolerate human fallibility to a much higher degree than we are willing to tolerate fallibility in machines.
I agree, and that's why I think we need to change our legal system to cope with it. If someone just left his cruise control on and slammed into another vehicle, he shouldn't be allowed to sue the maker of the cruise control. Same game with this system: If he isn't paying attention and the system encounters a fault condition or otherwise drives itself into a problem that could have been avoided with human intervention, it should be 100% his fault.
The first time some bonehead cuts you off when the computer is driving or any of a bunch of stuff just seems like it's gonna be trouble.
How so? The computer would react just as you would, only faster. What happens with some bonehead cuts you off on the freeway? You usually just release the accelerator... Worst case you apply a bit of brake. The computer would do the same thing, only it would react faster than you would, and it wouldn't slam the brakes in a panic or swerve off the road like human drivers have been known to do...
Honestly I wouldn't want to trust my life at high speeds to a piece of hardware that has a possibility of failure.
That's what failsafes are for. You have constant communication between the various modules of the system. If this communication is lost, or if any problem occurs, you engage the failsafe mode: Release the accelerator, leave the steering as-is (the car will begin to "drift") and sound an alarm. The driver then grabs the wheel and continues driving normally. No different than if you'd let go of the wheel for a few seconds while on the freeway... nothing happens. Worst case you drift a bit in your lane. If you're on a corner, the steering would be held in the current position, giving you plenty of time to resume driving manually.
Right, and infrared sensors can see right through darkness, fog, etc, and will act to avoid that deer a lot faster than any human could.
Weather also would be difficult to account for and not just snow
Agreed; I am not suggesting such a system be used to simple take people wherever. It would be more like cruise control: You turn it on when you need it, but you still have to pay attention. For instance, you'd have to set the speed limit manually each time you entered speed zones, and you couldn't just doze off and let it drive. It might not do well in complex traffic situations such as reversible lanes and other big city road conditions. But when you just want to get on the freeway and go somewhere in normal, dry road conditions, man, this thing would be perfect.
How would a car attempt to avoid and unavoidable accident??
Uhm, if it's unavoidable, it wouldn't be able to avoid it, now would it? But liability for these systems should be placed solely on the human driver. Even if you're not driving, you'll still need to pay attention.
Honestly, the technology exists right now to automatically drive my car along a freeway. I could probably set this up today with a few thousand dollars in hardware and a lot of code. Self-driving car projects are incredibly expensive and not yet fully reliable because they try to use them in the city. This is an extremely difficult environment to deal with.
But a freeway is perfect. All you need are cameras to watch the lines on the road, radar (or more cameras) to watch for other vehicles and objects in the road, servos to actuate the car's controls and a computer to run it all. I've actually thought about designing such a system for my RV, since long trips in that thing are very taxing. I'd still have to sit in the driver's seat and keep an eye on things, but that's infinitely less stressful than the driving itself.
But this will never be a mainstream product in our society. Too many lawyers and other disinterested parties (such as insurance companies). We'll have flying cars before you can go down and buy a self-freeway-driving module.
I'm posting this as an AC because the truth does not like to be heard on slashdot, just herd.
No, you're posting as AC because you're a pussy and an idiot. You proved the former by not logging in, and the latter by equating the theft of intellectual property with joyriding in a car. You will further prove this when you respond to me and say, "There's no difference, commie hippy fuckwad."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm here, I'm queer get used to it.
So, what, you have to shove it in everyone's face?
NEWS FLASH! We don't care whether you fuck men or women. Quite frankly we don't want to know about it. That's the problem with you homosexuals. It's not the bonking other men that bothers the rest of us, as we really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. It's the flagrant attitude. You wear your homosexuality like a medal of honor. It's like walking around with a big neon sign saying, "I bang men!" Then you wonder why people are offended.
You don't see heterosexual men running around with "I bang women!" signs, do you? No, because it's unacceptable in polite society. Give it a rest already. It's nice that you're happy with your sexual encounters, but you should learn to be happy in private.
I ran a later version of C/Net on an Amiga 3000 for 3 years. 7 phone lines and 3 local terminals for my friends & I. Those were some of the best times of my life.
Do you, on the other hand, have any excuse for failing to capitalise "Nazi", or must our collective wrath descend on you?
That's "descend upon." Clown.
If the copyright owner loses a potential sale due to a violation of copyright law, then it is a real loss
No you dumb fuck, what part of "potential" don't you understand?
If I buy a lottery ticket I'm a potential winner. But I can't claim that I lost $50M when I don't win because it was never guaranteed.
Just because I (wrongfully, you claim) download a CD doesn't mean the copyright holder would have had my money. There's a third alternative: I might have just done without the CD. This is why we use the word "potential".
"Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people...
So did the buggy manufacturers. What's your point? We shouldn't help obsolete companies live just because they employ a lot of people.
Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.
Whose rules? They certainly aren't mine. From the looks of it, there are an awful lot of people who agree with me. That doesn't necessarily make it "right", but it certainly lends support to my position.
Copyright is a bullshit system built on the artificial scarcity of infinitely reproducable items. It has been so perverted beyond it's intentions by big industry that I can not, and will not, respect it. There are millions like me, and we will win, because neither you nor the **AA nor any government or other entity in the world can stop us.
On a totally unrelated note, the newspapers I've seen today are using a photo of Avril Lavigne to illustrate this tale of the plight of the poor starving musicians...
LOL! That's funny, because I went on a music strike for years. I finally relented and bought Avril's first CD after downloading that skater boy song. Without p2p I wouldn't have found her and wouldn't have bought her CD (I don't listen to the radio).
90% of the music on my iPod is downloaded. Fuck you, Ballmer.
Oh, wait...
15 may not be a huge amount, but it's more than 4. So what if 95% of my mp3s are not paid for, I spend more money on music now than two years ago.
Exactly.
People are listening to music differently today. We don't listen to albums, we listen to huge playlists, genres, dates in history, etc. And nobody can afford to build that kind of a music collection if they bought it all.
I went on an 80's downloading spree a couple of years ago. Grabbed all of my favorite 80's tracks. No full albums - just various singles. I've got several hundred tracks. Assuming I had to buy all of these albums at $15 a pop, I have over $7,000 worth of music here. Now, did the music industry lose $7,000? Of course not. And they'd be fucking idiots to claim that they did. Nobody would go out and blow that kind of cash for an 80s playlist, discarding 90% of the songs because they only want 1 or 2 off each album.
Today, I could buy these off of iTunes for a buck a piece, but I won't do it due to the DRM. Remove the DRM and I'll start buying tracks. But that won't happen, so when I want a single I download it.
So, as usual, copy protection measures completely fuck the honest citizen while doing jack shit to stop the criminals.
How come you Slashdot people see this for copy protection, but not for gun control?
(And yes, if I spent $600 on Photoshop CS and found that I couldn't work with certain images because I'm presumed to be a criminal despite perfectly legitimate reasons for my actions, I call that completely fucked out of $600.)
That is exaclty what I'm arguing. Seattle is #98 in terms of density of population out of the top 100 metropolitan areas in the US.
So out of the hundreds of thousands of populated areas in the United States, Seattle ranks it at #98. That's in the upper 90% range in terms of overall population density.
Seattle is densly populated whether you like it or not. You can't simply measure it against the top 1% and say, "Oh, it's not dense. Look, there are 97 areas here that are even denser." You have to measure it as a whole. And as a whole, it's a very dense place, filled with dense people (did I just say that?).
Wow, your father had a really crazy view of Washington. A good portion of the state is a desert.
So when do we start throwing the virgins in? ... I think some Slashdotters better watch out o_O.
Technically, I know jacking off has nothing to do with losing one's virginity, but when you do it six times a day with inflatable dolls and the occasional sheep, can you morally claim to be a virgin? For that matter, would the volcano gods accept you?
and even then population density in the Seattle area is well below that of any place south of San Francisco on the California coast or north of Arlington, on the Eastern seaboard, all the way to Boston or so.
So? He didn't say "the most densly populated." Are you arguing that Seattle isn't densly populated?
And you forgot: generally filled with a lot of hot air.
And flames. Don't forget the flames.
All I want to know is, where do the trolls fit into all of this?
Where's the e-judge? A non-bribable A.I. would go a long way toward achieving proper justice in this country... Bonus points if it's capable of throwing the book (literally or figuratively, I don't care which) at both clients and lawyers bringing stupid lawsuits.
There are short patches of freeway where you might not see a line for ~1 second at normal freeway speeds. The system can deal with that by keeping the steering in it's previous position and correcting as soon as the line is encountered again. If another line is NOT encountered within x time/distance, the system should shut itself down and warn the driver to take immediate control of the vehicle.
What about construction areas? Places where half the road is being paved and the other half isn't?
You don't engage the system then. This is like a cruise control: You turn it on when needed and when it's safe to do so.
What will be done about animals such as deer that run into the road? Sure they could be detected on straighter roads, but what about around curves?
Uhm, can YOU detect an animal around curves? No? So how is this worse than what we have now?
A good radar/camera system would see the animal long before a human would in any condition. So this is infinitely better.
and, say, someone in the car didn't have their seatbelt on(you can't say everyone keeps their seatbelts on during long enough drives)..
In most states, having your seatbelt on is the law. If you don't have your seatbelt on, it's your own stupid fault. But this is why I mentioned lawyers being the reason automated driving won't happen - because, even though everyone knows the moron who wasn't wearing the seatbelt has nobody but himself to blame, the lawyers will wretch billions from the corporation that developed the system in various lawsuits anyway.
You're over simplifying a bit. Simple things like cameras that watch for lines on the road fail pretty easily if the road is covered by, for example, snow or rain. Before this is feasible it needs to be absolutely bulletproof. People's live are literally riding on it.
If the system isn't seeing the lines properly, it encounters a fault condition and turns itself off, prompting the driver to take control. This would be up to the driver: You wouldn't engage cruise control while going down an icy road, and neither would you engage auto-drive while cruising in slippery/snowy conditions (and if you tried, it would know that it can't operate properly and shut itself right back off).
Imagine a computerised car was involved in a similar accident. The damages against the company that built it would doubtless be _far_ higher. We seem willing to tolerate human fallibility to a much higher degree than we are willing to tolerate fallibility in machines.
I agree, and that's why I think we need to change our legal system to cope with it. If someone just left his cruise control on and slammed into another vehicle, he shouldn't be allowed to sue the maker of the cruise control. Same game with this system: If he isn't paying attention and the system encounters a fault condition or otherwise drives itself into a problem that could have been avoided with human intervention, it should be 100% his fault.
The first time some bonehead cuts you off when the computer is driving or any of a bunch of stuff just seems like it's gonna be trouble.
How so? The computer would react just as you would, only faster. What happens with some bonehead cuts you off on the freeway? You usually just release the accelerator... Worst case you apply a bit of brake. The computer would do the same thing, only it would react faster than you would, and it wouldn't slam the brakes in a panic or swerve off the road like human drivers have been known to do...
Honestly I wouldn't want to trust my life at high speeds to a piece of hardware that has a possibility of failure.
That's what failsafes are for. You have constant communication between the various modules of the system. If this communication is lost, or if any problem occurs, you engage the failsafe mode: Release the accelerator, leave the steering as-is (the car will begin to "drift") and sound an alarm. The driver then grabs the wheel and continues driving normally. No different than if you'd let go of the wheel for a few seconds while on the freeway... nothing happens. Worst case you drift a bit in your lane. If you're on a corner, the steering would be held in the current position, giving you plenty of time to resume driving manually.
Deer are a HUGE problem here in Wisconsin.
Right, and infrared sensors can see right through darkness, fog, etc, and will act to avoid that deer a lot faster than any human could.
Weather also would be difficult to account for and not just snow
Agreed; I am not suggesting such a system be used to simple take people wherever. It would be more like cruise control: You turn it on when you need it, but you still have to pay attention. For instance, you'd have to set the speed limit manually each time you entered speed zones, and you couldn't just doze off and let it drive. It might not do well in complex traffic situations such as reversible lanes and other big city road conditions. But when you just want to get on the freeway and go somewhere in normal, dry road conditions, man, this thing would be perfect.
How would a car attempt to avoid and unavoidable accident??
Uhm, if it's unavoidable, it wouldn't be able to avoid it, now would it? But liability for these systems should be placed solely on the human driver. Even if you're not driving, you'll still need to pay attention.
How well do the lane sensors work when you throw some snow on the road?
You wouldn't want to use this system in the snow, anyway. Slippery conditions = probably unsafe to use.
Automated freeway cruising.
Honestly, the technology exists right now to automatically drive my car along a freeway. I could probably set this up today with a few thousand dollars in hardware and a lot of code. Self-driving car projects are incredibly expensive and not yet fully reliable because they try to use them in the city. This is an extremely difficult environment to deal with.
But a freeway is perfect. All you need are cameras to watch the lines on the road, radar (or more cameras) to watch for other vehicles and objects in the road, servos to actuate the car's controls and a computer to run it all. I've actually thought about designing such a system for my RV, since long trips in that thing are very taxing. I'd still have to sit in the driver's seat and keep an eye on things, but that's infinitely less stressful than the driving itself.
But this will never be a mainstream product in our society. Too many lawyers and other disinterested parties (such as insurance companies). We'll have flying cars before you can go down and buy a self-freeway-driving module.
Come on, there HAS to be a good "In Soviet Russia" joke here...
Oh, wait. "In Soviet Russia" jokes are never good. Nothing to see here, move along...
I'm posting this as an AC because the truth does not like to be heard on slashdot, just herd.
No, you're posting as AC because you're a pussy and an idiot. You proved the former by not logging in, and the latter by equating the theft of intellectual property with joyriding in a car. You will further prove this when you respond to me and say, "There's no difference, commie hippy fuckwad."