The article mentions the "pirate's argument" that it is okay to pirate because that person would not have bought the product anyway, therefore there is no lost sale.
A lot of people think this. They fail to see that when you "can't" afford the $100 word processor you WANT, and you pirate it, you just took a sale from the cheaper $20 word processor you otherwise would have NEEDED to buy.
A video site called Liveleak, that runs a few dozen new videos daily, ran a video of a russian circus family practicing, which involved an adult holding a child by the limbs and tossing/spinning him about. The aussie gov't is prosecuting an aussie for watching the video. Here's the appeal for support for the accused: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a77_1228162261
Your retinas are, even together, a 2 dimensional array. You never "saw" anything but what your brain constructed from 2 dimensional arrays. Turns out your brain is very, very good at visualizing a 3d object based on this input. Would you say you can't visualize an actor's physical body because the screen is 2 dimensional?
Remember the game? In bullet time, you were slowed a little, and the enemies and bullets were slowed far more... you could dodge the bullets.
In this trailer, all we have is standard slow-mo, with all actors slowed the same amount, and firing blanks (not dodgable bullets like in Max Payne). The hero dodges not a single bullet in the trailer. The game is about entering bullet time and dodging bullets in just about every other firefight.
Note that YOUR post was broader than the original issue here of genetic discrimination. A person who makes healthy choices should be allowed to pool with like individuals, and not be forced to pay for health care for people who over-ate their way to diabetes. Furthermore, declaring a service provided by others as a "basic human right" is problematic for obvious reasons.
Repeating this story is worth being modded down for:
Where We're Headed Robert A. Waters You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The guy down the street has an old Mercedes diesel. He uses electricity (coal power) to keep it warm at night. His parking space is an oil slick. The exhaust is sooty.
The Singularity is Near has a rebuttal of your first paragraph. Any sucessful part of AI research spins off into its own well-functioning discipline... optical character recognition, dictation software, text-to-speech, etc... they were sci-fi "AI" in 1980 and now they are working technologies. AI research is the umbrella under which only the unsolved problems still lie, and thus is always undone.
As a user of comcast who is willing to equitably share the service, you might best understand a different perception of heavy downloaders from this story and the picture accompaning it.
We must now review the new data from whatever angle is required to arrive at the conclusion we already decided we wanted, like this +5 post: "Cut all the alternate paths until the traffic you desire to capture comes through your surveillance hub." http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=444028&cid=22321082
The founders wrote into the constitution the supreme court justices, who also aren't elected. Why would the founders be appalled by the office of FCC commissioner?
4b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory.
Note that is deals with ORIGINs. Like Darwins _The Origin of Species_.
The submitter would have been more correct, albeit less sensational, to say "Humans Mutating 100 Times Faster Than Ever"
And 640K ought to be enough for any program, and a computer will never beat a man at chess...
By 2050, a robot will read what you wrote, download violin skills and compose and play the most beautiful piece ever, better than any man, just because it can.
"The parasite Toxoplasma gondii uses a remarkable trick to spread from rodents to cats: It alters the brains of infected rats and mice so that they become attracted to--rather than repelled by--the scent of their predators. "
Slashdot Mirror
took the platters out and used a grinder on them to remove the surface.
Intelligence is the result of survival boredom.
Isn't intelligence a prerequisite for boredom, and therefore can not be a result of boredom?
The article mentions the "pirate's argument" that it is okay to pirate because that person would not have bought the product anyway, therefore there is no lost sale.
A lot of people think this. They fail to see that when you "can't" afford the $100 word processor you WANT, and you pirate it, you just took a sale from the cheaper $20 word processor you otherwise would have NEEDED to buy.
A video site called Liveleak, that runs a few dozen new videos daily, ran a video of a russian circus family practicing, which involved an adult holding a child by the limbs and tossing/spinning him about. The aussie gov't is prosecuting an aussie for watching the video. Here's the appeal for support for the accused:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a77_1228162261
Voters are allowed assistance if they need it. They can even have an absentee ballot filled out for them.
Loved your story. Food for thought when considering what else this bureaucracy should not be given charge of.
Your retinas are, even together, a 2 dimensional array. You never "saw" anything but what your brain constructed from 2 dimensional arrays. Turns out your brain is very, very good at visualizing a 3d object based on this input. Would you say you can't visualize an actor's physical body because the screen is 2 dimensional?
Reading a public blog and giving free tech support about problems posted in the blog is good.
Remember the game? In bullet time, you were slowed a little, and the enemies and bullets were slowed far more... you could dodge the bullets.
In this trailer, all we have is standard slow-mo, with all actors slowed the same amount, and firing blanks (not dodgable bullets like in Max Payne). The hero dodges not a single bullet in the trailer. The game is about entering bullet time and dodging bullets in just about every other firefight.
Max Payne (the game) was loaded with slow-motion "bullet-time." The trailer didn't show any bullet-time.
It's a case about an audio CD being resold? Why did the EFF get involved?
Note that YOUR post was broader than the original issue here of genetic discrimination.
A person who makes healthy choices should be allowed to pool with like individuals, and not be forced to pay for health care for people who over-ate their way to diabetes. Furthermore, declaring a service provided by others as a "basic human right" is problematic for obvious reasons.
Repeating this story is worth being modded down for:
Where We're Headed
Robert A. Waters
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already desensitize
The guy down the street has an old Mercedes diesel. He uses electricity (coal power) to keep it warm at night. His parking space is an oil slick. The exhaust is sooty.
The Singularity is Near has a rebuttal of your first paragraph. Any sucessful part of AI research spins off into its own well-functioning discipline... optical character recognition, dictation software, text-to-speech, etc... they were sci-fi "AI" in 1980 and now they are working technologies. AI research is the umbrella under which only the unsolved problems still lie, and thus is always undone.
As a user of comcast who is willing to equitably share the service, you might best understand a different perception of heavy downloaders from this story and the picture accompaning it.
http://people.monstersandcritics.com/bizarre/news/article_1384370.php/Louisiana_fat_people_banned_from_All_You_Can_Eat_Buffet
The people who want to read around laws will always try to. These people will be kept in check by juries, not by differently written laws.
We must now review the new data from whatever angle is required to arrive at the conclusion we already decided we wanted, like this +5 post:
"Cut all the alternate paths until the traffic you desire to capture comes through your surveillance hub."
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=444028&cid=22321082
maybe it will.
The founders wrote into the constitution the supreme court justices, who also aren't elected. Why would the founders be appalled by the office of FCC commissioner?
Here's the definition of evolution:
4b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory.
Note that is deals with ORIGINs. Like Darwins _The Origin of Species_.
The submitter would have been more correct, albeit less sensational, to say "Humans Mutating 100 Times Faster Than Ever"
Central to the theory of evolution is speciation. Arguing that changes WITHIN a species is also evolution is a form of, ironically, extrapolation.
The only true measure of rate of evolution is rate of new speciation, like the fossil record shows after mass extinctions.
You might hate the ID argument that scientists haven't documented one species turning into another in real time, but that doesn't make it untrue.
...if we could find an organism that has corn in its poop!
And 640K ought to be enough for any program, and a computer will never beat a man at chess...
By 2050, a robot will read what you wrote, download violin skills and compose and play the most beautiful piece ever, better than any man, just because it can.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070403-cats-rats.html
"The parasite Toxoplasma gondii uses a remarkable trick to spread from rodents to cats: It alters the brains of infected rats and mice so that they become attracted to--rather than repelled by--the scent of their predators. "