There's no point in investing money into Hubble anymore. There are other, more powerful telescopes out there that can see farther. Just because Hubble pioneered long-range high-resolution astronomy doesn't mean we should rely on it for future endeavors. I mean, I can totally understand the sentimental attachment to it, but in the real world, you have to make cost-benefit analyses.
And not only that, Moore's Law has actually held for a lot longer than 40 years anyway. It was in place for a long time already when Moore first proposed it. Plus, if you look at computation speed, it's held since the beginning of the 20th century, accounting for the days of punchcards.
Those are one and the same. By using something without buying the appropriate rights bundle, you are doing tangible harm to someone and should have to make good.
No, I think he said it quite correctly. The "they" refers to the students. "We all hate the *AA's BUT [i.e., despite our dislike of them they were in the right] the students were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network." Actually, I don't think that clarified it any.
Okay, I've read all the replies here, and he's right. None of you has managed to convince me. These students used the network for TOTALLY unauthorized purposes. Anyone who uses the internet to break the law deserves to be sued for the damage they cause. End of story. And don't give me this "privacy rights" nonsense. This is the internet. You have no privacy.
Very, VERY good point. And I think you've touched on the fundamental flaw in the RIAA's proposal: that nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Do I not have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
So we can't keep encouraging the **AA to use strongarm tactics that violate our rights.
Comment: Chill out dude. I was just saying that people who don't like spam are likely to buy things online. I NEVER said the things they bought online were based on spam emails. I was just showing the GENERAL contradiction in how people approach spam. Specifically, they hate online marketing, yet buy online.
Feed the troll? I am not a troll, sir. But you know who is a troll? You, for calling me a troll. That is trolling. You just can't accept that I made a valid point, so you have to slander me.
I see all this time and money being invested into research to block spam. But we need to rethink our premises: does spam even need to be blocked? Is it actually a problem?
What you call "spam", I call "emails that help me learn about the latest products, websites, and business models". You want less of it? I want MORE of it. "Spam" keeps me informed about the world. And the fact is, consumers LIKE spam. Why do you think spam is profitable? Because people buy the products advertised! Studies show that 3 in 5 people who dislike "spam" have actually bought something online. So frankly, you need to be real careful about how you define "spam" because you could be targeting something you LIKE.
What's the point of your idea? To stop spam? If so, I don't see the point. What you call "spam", I call "emails that help me learn about the latest products, websites, and business models". You want less of it? I want MORE of it. "Spam" keeps me informed about the world. And the fact is, consumers LIKE spam. Why do you think spam is profitable? Because people buy the products advertised! Studies show that 3 in 5 people who dislike "spam" have actually bought something online. So frankly, you need to be real careful about how you define "spam" because you could be targeting something you LIKE.
The only point seems to be that whenever I make analogies to totalitarian government, I get modded down, but when other people do it, they get modded up. Check my history: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145205&cid=121 58832
Well now hold on. The Xbox 2 is going to be a good, solid system, just like the rest of the Microsoft products. Keep in mind, these are the folks the brought us Windows (!) as well as the whole.NET framework. I personally haven't gotten anything like a BSOD in all my time using Windows. I've seen other people get one on occasion, but never me.
Long point short, it's not likely they'll get a blue screen of death on live TV. I think I'll take your bet.
so when you are with a woman (or whatever gender you prefer), and you (both of you) are talking complete and utter nonsense, but still, you just seem to click and it's soooo nice, that's all ones and zeros ?
VERY good point. Because basically, nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information. So we can't keep encouraging the **AA to use strongarm tactics that violate our rights.
And for that matter, if the movie was just a tape of someone taking a crap for two hours, and they called it "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I'm sure a lot of geeks would still flock to see it and say it was awesome.
That's a load of garbage. Nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
Paying less taxes only forces the hand of the government to choose between security (armed services, intelligence, defense) and general welfare (health care, education, infrastructure).
Right, because everyone knows the government is so good at providing those things.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, I was just BSing. Can't believe I got modded up.
why do they keep calling them gyroscope when they really are reaction-wheels?
A gyroscope is just a generalized reaction wheel.
There's no point in investing money into Hubble anymore. There are other, more powerful telescopes out there that can see farther. Just because Hubble pioneered long-range high-resolution astronomy doesn't mean we should rely on it for future endeavors. I mean, I can totally understand the sentimental attachment to it, but in the real world, you have to make cost-benefit analyses.
And not only that, Moore's Law has actually held for a lot longer than 40 years anyway. It was in place for a long time already when Moore first proposed it. Plus, if you look at computation speed, it's held since the beginning of the 20th century, accounting for the days of punchcards.
Those are one and the same. By using something without buying the appropriate rights bundle, you are doing tangible harm to someone and should have to make good.
Being from Ireland, I would have to agree. Piracy is pretty rampant here in Brazil.
Gambling is a sin.
No, I think he said it quite correctly. The "they" refers to the students. "We all hate the *AA's BUT [i.e., despite our dislike of them they were in the right] the students were breaking the law, and bastardizing a research network." Actually, I don't think that clarified it any.
Okay, I've read all the replies here, and he's right. None of you has managed to convince me. These students used the network for TOTALLY unauthorized purposes. Anyone who uses the internet to break the law deserves to be sued for the damage they cause. End of story. And don't give me this "privacy rights" nonsense. This is the internet. You have no privacy.
That's just how high school and college work. Btw, what the hell does Socrates look like???
Very, VERY good point. And I think you've touched on the fundamental flaw in the RIAA's proposal: that nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Do I not have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
So we can't keep encouraging the **AA to use strongarm tactics that violate our rights.
Source: Wall Street Journal
Comment: Chill out dude. I was just saying that people who don't like spam are likely to buy things online. I NEVER said the things they bought online were based on spam emails. I was just showing the GENERAL contradiction in how people approach spam. Specifically, they hate online marketing, yet buy online.
Feed the troll? I am not a troll, sir. But you know who is a troll? You, for calling me a troll. That is trolling. You just can't accept that I made a valid point, so you have to slander me.
I see all this time and money being invested into research to block spam. But we need to rethink our premises: does spam even need to be blocked? Is it actually a problem?
What you call "spam", I call "emails that help me learn about the latest products, websites, and business models". You want less of it? I want MORE of it. "Spam" keeps me informed about the world. And the fact is, consumers LIKE spam. Why do you think spam is profitable? Because people buy the products advertised! Studies show that 3 in 5 people who dislike "spam" have actually bought something online. So frankly, you need to be real careful about how you define "spam" because you could be targeting something you LIKE.
What's the point of your idea? To stop spam? If so, I don't see the point. What you call "spam", I call "emails that help me learn about the latest products, websites, and business models". You want less of it? I want MORE of it. "Spam" keeps me informed about the world. And the fact is, consumers LIKE spam. Why do you think spam is profitable? Because people buy the products advertised! Studies show that 3 in 5 people who dislike "spam" have actually bought something online. So frankly, you need to be real careful about how you define "spam" because you could be targeting something you LIKE.
Don't you mean the a, s, d, f keys? Most guys jerk off with their left hand.
The only point seems to be that whenever I make analogies to totalitarian government, I get modded down, but when other people do it, they get modded up. Check my history: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=145205&cid=121 58832
Well now hold on. The Xbox 2 is going to be a good, solid system, just like the rest of the Microsoft products. Keep in mind, these are the folks the brought us Windows (!) as well as the whole .NET framework. I personally haven't gotten anything like a BSOD in all my time using Windows. I've seen other people get one on occasion, but never me.
Long point short, it's not likely they'll get a blue screen of death on live TV. I think I'll take your bet.
You're comparing spam to a totalitarian government? Um, yeah, why don't you just fire up that bong again...
so when you are with a woman (or whatever gender you prefer), and you (both of you) are talking complete and utter nonsense, but still, you just seem to click and it's soooo nice, that's all ones and zeros ?
Yes.
You might disagree with how he said it, but he made a valid point...
VERY good point. Because basically, nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information. So we can't keep encouraging the **AA to use strongarm tactics that violate our rights.
And for that matter, if the movie was just a tape of someone taking a crap for two hours, and they called it "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", I'm sure a lot of geeks would still flock to see it and say it was awesome.
That's a load of garbage. Nobody owns information. Information is just a combination of ones and zeroes. Are you saying I don't have the right to order the ones and zeroes on my computer however I want? I own this computer. Information just floats around. When informed of it, I order the ones and zeroes on my computer differently. What moral crime have I committed? Who really owns my computer? I own my computer. No one owns information.
Paying less taxes only forces the hand of the government to choose between security (armed services, intelligence, defense) and general welfare (health care, education, infrastructure).
Right, because everyone knows the government is so good at providing those things.