If they are so desperate why don't they put more funding into the research? Its has always been my impression that Japan has been after oil almost as much as the US. These countries don't want clean energy, they want cheap energy and they'll use oil to get it. Its laziness, lack of creativity, whatever you want to call it. But it is not progress.
This is one aspect of the DMCA that should cause the US Congress to through the whole thing out and start over
One would think so, but Congress has successfully proven without a shadow of a doubt that they are NOT on the people's side by passing many highly contriversial laws like this with a voice vote. Our representatives are not representing the will of the people. Instead they are helping organizations like the MPAA and member companies gain a monopoly on the Movie industry. Just like the RIAA did with the music industry. All these companies act the same way, sell their products for the same price ranges (with an easy 10,000% markup over cost), and promote the same legislation, because they are monopolies. I reallize that there are 7 competitors of the MPAA, but have you ever seen them compete? You'd think they all worked for the same corporation, when you go to the store and see a bunch of DVD and CDs, but ALL of them come from the MPAA or RIAA, NONE from independant sources. That's what a monopoly is. And that's what Americans and capitalists support and call good business. Am I the only one who disagrees with this way of life?
When I was a child I learned to share. The concept really isn't that difficult.
Another way to look at it is from the perspective of the consumer. You watch TV to learn what options you have for buying a car and everything in the media today tells you to buy gasolina. But Q: where does the energy in oil come from? A: the sun.
The Sun bombarded the Earth with radiation many millions of years ago until plants and animals started growing and living. Then they all died, and we came alone and dug them up to burn 'em and drive around in our SUVs. Now think about this for a second. Oil is a limitted resource that takes hundreds of thousands of years to create, although we can now make synthetics. But being a limitted resource that makes it more valuable than the money we pay for it.
Here's how it works. It costs us some time from our limitted short lives to make that money. Then we take that money and buy oil with it. That Oil took hundreds of thousands of years to make, far more time than we'll ever have the luxury to trading for money. It can never be replaced and we will eventually run out. One day don't you think our great great grand children are going to ask us what we were thinking when we decided to burn it up in smoke? We can use it today to make plastics and various other things, enough for everyone... think about it. There's enough oil today to make plastic keyboards and monitors and TVs for everyone. But there isn't enough oil to last more than 100 years with our SUVs, then its gone.
So as it is right now we know that one day we need to switch from oil to some other form of energy. We know that oil is very valuable for its unique chemical properties. But we're unwilling to make the logical conclusion that we should fund the research to find alternatives and switch to them ASAP to preserve as much fossil fuels as may be required by the human race some time in the unforseeable future.
But who knows maybe a big hunk of rock will come flying down out of the sky and kill us all tomorrow. But we're so egotistical we'd still probably look for someone else to blame. What frustrates me is this all seems like common sense. But its not like society was ever based on love.
If we had decided we were going to be using electricity instead of running on oil for the rest of our lives then maybe we'd have electric vehicles that charge in less than 5 minutes. Technology requires funding for R&D. There's at least 1000 times more money being put into research to find new ways to dig up oil than there is being put into alternative fuel sources. Its quite pathetic how short sighted we all are.
What's sad is most of the graphics technology in our PC that we take for granted was pioneered by SGI. They are a technology leader, like IBM and Intel. But we'd rather worry about money than technology.
Its really very sad. You know what else is sad? I used to work there. I saw our potential back then. I still do. But I don't think we'll ever do anything with it because its not profitable. We'd rather make money than build a quality environment for all of us to live in. We'd rather make money than work together. We'd rather be independant and rich than contribute for the love of something. I loved SGI, I love Linux. I'll contribute, one of these days, when I can afford it.
But what happens if we prove these theories to be true? How can we explain to the world that the Universe exists in 11 or 24 dimensions? It contradicts the founding beliefs of most bodies of power. Not that the Universe is extradimensional, but that it is more than what we percieve as reality. How do we create laws for such a land. See what I'm getting at? If science can no longer conform to what society believes to be reality, which is classified as sanity, then society must conform to science. However society does not want to conform and it holds all the keys that unlock science, like money and power. What good is it to know the secrets of the universe when you won't ever be able to tell your parents or grandparents?
Actually I'd probably conclude that my tools for measuring needed to be recalibrated. But I get your point. Personally I'd prefer to explain things with science that everyone can understand. When we talk about the Grand Unification Theory any religious nut, politician, or old person can't possibly understand what dark matter is. The very foundation of their system of beliefs would have to be broken for them to accept the possibility of alternate dimensions, etc. Personally I prefer to believe that its all theory until we have some hard cold facts, and attempt to build an hypothesis based on things that have been proven to exist. But that's just me, and I admit I'm weird.:)
The main problem with phsyics is lately (within the last 50 years) it has been proving most eastern religions correct in their assumptions that everything does have an opposite, that the nature of the universe is bipolar or something. Matter/anti-matter, positive and negative charge, positive and negative energy, etc. It all adds up to the same thing.. we're growing old.
yes, but does it have to be some new type of something? Have we accounted for all the normal matter in the galaxy yet? I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me like there's probably many moons and hunks of rock in space that our telescopes just can't see. It wasn't until recently that we even thought there might be planets around other Stars in the galaxy. What's next for our divine intellectuals to discover? Moons around those planets? No, say it ain't so.. Did we take into consideration the mass those moons have and their effect on the Stars, when determining how much dark matter exists?
I don't think its really all that mysterious or difficult, or that we're really all that smart. But I could be wrong.
Isn't dark matter simply matter that doesn't emit light? If stars get formed by huge clouds of gas that eventually create so much heat and pressure that it starts a process of fusion, then its more than likely all this dark matter we are talking about is just that, dark matter, dirt, whatever you want to call it. It isn't anything significant other than it isn't radioactive, which is a good thing, IMO.
Er, at least that's what the cable company would say if they caught you.;) I think there's a reason fair use has never been written into law, its just common sense. Content was never meant to be this restricted.
Oh, and it could be argued that viewing new content, reguardless of origin or nature, it educational is some way providing the view with new experiences to draw from, for example, in creating new works of art. Yeah, its all about money anyway, but I love this arguement.
Under your interpretation of copyright law we'd have no DJs. Copyright law does not prevent you from copying content. If I own a license to view content I can view it reguardless of which format it is in. I don't own a license to view a DVD, I own a license to view a Movie. If both you and me own that license, then what happens if I can copy my DVD into an ogm file and give you a copy. Would we be breaking copyright law? (I'd be breaking the DMCA, but that's beside the point here) That's something I bet even our courts would have a hard time figuring out.
How many friends have handed you mixed tapes of their favorite music. Its the same thing. How do you prosecute someone for making a mixed tape or giving it to their friends. Its different when their friends become everyone connected to Gnutella, but to keep things simple let's just talk about neighbors sharing TV broadcasts.
Thanks for the reply, but can you provide some links or reasoning to backup your claims? Its legal for me to copy anything transmitted over the airwaves, any content I grab out of the air does not have a copyright attatched to it, as far as I know. Or else I would be able to limit the court's use of my cell phone transactions because I'd own the copyright to them. Copyright is not as strict as you make it out to be. Initially it was intended to protect the valuable intellectual property of authors from the printing press and businesses that wanted to profit off of their work. Now you are using it, like the MPAA and RIAA would prefer us to use it, to limit our freedom to copy and distribute works without causing financial harm to anyone. See the difference? Napster was at fault because they were profitting off of other people's work. Gnutella is not and as a result is not breaking copyright law.
You say: People have argued this both ways, but your interpretation seems to be losing.
Perhaps that is what you precieve to be true because you get your News from the popular media.
I believe as long as you are not selling it fair use applies. Besides most TV shows are broadcast across the airwaves making them public domain, since anyone could intercept them. Basicly everyone has a license to view TV programming. HBO Movies might be a different story. Or an encrypted TV network, like digital cable or HDTV.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are so desperate why don't they put more funding into the research? Its has always been my impression that Japan has been after oil almost as much as the US. These countries don't want clean energy, they want cheap energy and they'll use oil to get it. Its laziness, lack of creativity, whatever you want to call it. But it is not progress.
This is one aspect of the DMCA that should cause the US Congress to through the whole thing out and start over
One would think so, but Congress has successfully proven without a shadow of a doubt that they are NOT on the people's side by passing many highly contriversial laws like this with a voice vote. Our representatives are not representing the will of the people. Instead they are helping organizations like the MPAA and member companies gain a monopoly on the Movie industry. Just like the RIAA did with the music industry. All these companies act the same way, sell their products for the same price ranges (with an easy 10,000% markup over cost), and promote the same legislation, because they are monopolies. I reallize that there are 7 competitors of the MPAA, but have you ever seen them compete? You'd think they all worked for the same corporation, when you go to the store and see a bunch of DVD and CDs, but ALL of them come from the MPAA or RIAA, NONE from independant sources. That's what a monopoly is. And that's what Americans and capitalists support and call good business. Am I the only one who disagrees with this way of life?
When I was a child I learned to share. The concept really isn't that difficult.
Thus, the consumer is to blame.
Another way to look at it is from the perspective of the consumer. You watch TV to learn what options you have for buying a car and everything in the media today tells you to buy gasolina. But Q: where does the energy in oil come from? A: the sun.
The Sun bombarded the Earth with radiation many millions of years ago until plants and animals started growing and living. Then they all died, and we came alone and dug them up to burn 'em and drive around in our SUVs. Now think about this for a second. Oil is a limitted resource that takes hundreds of thousands of years to create, although we can now make synthetics. But being a limitted resource that makes it more valuable than the money we pay for it.
Here's how it works. It costs us some time from our limitted short lives to make that money. Then we take that money and buy oil with it. That Oil took hundreds of thousands of years to make, far more time than we'll ever have the luxury to trading for money. It can never be replaced and we will eventually run out. One day don't you think our great great grand children are going to ask us what we were thinking when we decided to burn it up in smoke? We can use it today to make plastics and various other things, enough for everyone... think about it. There's enough oil today to make plastic keyboards and monitors and TVs for everyone. But there isn't enough oil to last more than 100 years with our SUVs, then its gone.
So as it is right now we know that one day we need to switch from oil to some other form of energy. We know that oil is very valuable for its unique chemical properties. But we're unwilling to make the logical conclusion that we should fund the research to find alternatives and switch to them ASAP to preserve as much fossil fuels as may be required by the human race some time in the unforseeable future.
But who knows maybe a big hunk of rock will come flying down out of the sky and kill us all tomorrow. But we're so egotistical we'd still probably look for someone else to blame. What frustrates me is this all seems like common sense. But its not like society was ever based on love.
If we had decided we were going to be using electricity instead of running on oil for the rest of our lives then maybe we'd have electric vehicles that charge in less than 5 minutes. Technology requires funding for R&D. There's at least 1000 times more money being put into research to find new ways to dig up oil than there is being put into alternative fuel sources. Its quite pathetic how short sighted we all are.
it's the population as a whole
No, its the media. The population merely watched TV and does what it is told.
What's sad is most of the graphics technology in our PC that we take for granted was pioneered by SGI. They are a technology leader, like IBM and Intel. But we'd rather worry about money than technology.
Its really very sad. You know what else is sad? I used to work there. I saw our potential back then. I still do. But I don't think we'll ever do anything with it because its not profitable. We'd rather make money than build a quality environment for all of us to live in. We'd rather make money than work together. We'd rather be independant and rich than contribute for the love of something. I loved SGI, I love Linux. I'll contribute, one of these days, when I can afford it.
Those are great examples. Unfortunately their cron job knows how to run shredders, too. ;)
Ooo, I like that :)
I can't even imagine how much imaginary mass I'd have flying 300,000,001 m/s through space. Probably not very much.
But what happens if we prove these theories to be true? How can we explain to the world that the Universe exists in 11 or 24 dimensions? It contradicts the founding beliefs of most bodies of power. Not that the Universe is extradimensional, but that it is more than what we percieve as reality. How do we create laws for such a land. See what I'm getting at? If science can no longer conform to what society believes to be reality, which is classified as sanity, then society must conform to science. However society does not want to conform and it holds all the keys that unlock science, like money and power. What good is it to know the secrets of the universe when you won't ever be able to tell your parents or grandparents?
Actually I'd probably conclude that my tools for measuring needed to be recalibrated. But I get your point. Personally I'd prefer to explain things with science that everyone can understand. When we talk about the Grand Unification Theory any religious nut, politician, or old person can't possibly understand what dark matter is. The very foundation of their system of beliefs would have to be broken for them to accept the possibility of alternate dimensions, etc. Personally I prefer to believe that its all theory until we have some hard cold facts, and attempt to build an hypothesis based on things that have been proven to exist. But that's just me, and I admit I'm weird. :)
The main problem with phsyics is lately (within the last 50 years) it has been proving most eastern religions correct in their assumptions that everything does have an opposite, that the nature of the universe is bipolar or something. Matter/anti-matter, positive and negative charge, positive and negative energy, etc. It all adds up to the same thing.. we're growing old.
Now that's the type of answer I was looking for. *applaud* :)
:P
Still over my head, though.
black holes are cool! Proof that God is a power gamer. :)
yes, but does it have to be some new type of something? Have we accounted for all the normal matter in the galaxy yet? I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me like there's probably many moons and hunks of rock in space that our telescopes just can't see. It wasn't until recently that we even thought there might be planets around other Stars in the galaxy. What's next for our divine intellectuals to discover? Moons around those planets? No, say it ain't so.. Did we take into consideration the mass those moons have and their effect on the Stars, when determining how much dark matter exists?
I don't think its really all that mysterious or difficult, or that we're really all that smart. But I could be wrong.
All matter has mass and thus gravity.. er I'd like to think it does anyway. :)
Isn't dark matter simply matter that doesn't emit light? If stars get formed by huge clouds of gas that eventually create so much heat and pressure that it starts a process of fusion, then its more than likely all this dark matter we are talking about is just that, dark matter, dirt, whatever you want to call it. It isn't anything significant other than it isn't radioactive, which is a good thing, IMO.
You're talking about radio DJs
;)
You don't get out much, do you?
Whether or not one makes a profit from redistribution does not eliminate the copyright.
But it does have an effect on the amount of damage one can sue for.
YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!
;) I think there's a reason fair use has never been written into law, its just common sense. Content was never meant to be this restricted.
GO TO JAIL!
Er, at least that's what the cable company would say if they caught you.
Oh, and it could be argued that viewing new content, reguardless of origin or nature, it educational is some way providing the view with new experiences to draw from, for example, in creating new works of art. Yeah, its all about money anyway, but I love this arguement.
Under your interpretation of copyright law we'd have no DJs. Copyright law does not prevent you from copying content. If I own a license to view content I can view it reguardless of which format it is in. I don't own a license to view a DVD, I own a license to view a Movie. If both you and me own that license, then what happens if I can copy my DVD into an ogm file and give you a copy. Would we be breaking copyright law? (I'd be breaking the DMCA, but that's beside the point here) That's something I bet even our courts would have a hard time figuring out.
How many friends have handed you mixed tapes of their favorite music. Its the same thing. How do you prosecute someone for making a mixed tape or giving it to their friends. Its different when their friends become everyone connected to Gnutella, but to keep things simple let's just talk about neighbors sharing TV broadcasts.
Thanks for the reply, but can you provide some links or reasoning to backup your claims? Its legal for me to copy anything transmitted over the airwaves, any content I grab out of the air does not have a copyright attatched to it, as far as I know. Or else I would be able to limit the court's use of my cell phone transactions because I'd own the copyright to them. Copyright is not as strict as you make it out to be. Initially it was intended to protect the valuable intellectual property of authors from the printing press and businesses that wanted to profit off of their work. Now you are using it, like the MPAA and RIAA would prefer us to use it, to limit our freedom to copy and distribute works without causing financial harm to anyone. See the difference? Napster was at fault because they were profitting off of other people's work. Gnutella is not and as a result is not breaking copyright law.
You say: People have argued this both ways, but your interpretation seems to be losing.
Perhaps that is what you precieve to be true because you get your News from the popular media.
hehe, good point. I don't mind the bugs so much, I just hate paying for bug fixes and general OS features, like DVD playing. They should be free IMO.
Well, I'm glad you like it and I hope they don't raise the price of your bug fixes and upgrades to something unreasonable for you.
I believe as long as you are not selling it fair use applies. Besides most TV shows are broadcast across the airwaves making them public domain, since anyone could intercept them. Basicly everyone has a license to view TV programming. HBO Movies might be a different story. Or an encrypted TV network, like digital cable or HDTV.