The problem is the past is indeterminate too. You can't go back to the "past" you came from unless you already had.
In the antiparticle time travel, you meet an antiparticle version of you at which point you 'turn around' and start going backwards and at some other point you turn back around to 'go forward' again. During the time you're going backwards, you past is now your future and thus, indeterminate. You are going into a different past in all probability. Thus, no violation of causality.
Note: this requires that the theory that every quantum possibility that can exist does exist along some other plane of reality be correct.
You are correct that I've never seen them chanting "Down with Al Queda!" But what may not be apperant to an outsider like you is that they don't think Al Queda has anything special to do with them.
To give another example that statement brings to mind would be requiring catholics (outside Ireland) to actively protest the IRA.
All you have to do is look at China in the middle ages turning its back on exploration to focus on the internal problems and ignoring the rest of the world to see where that sort of insular thinking leads.
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, there may be no immediately apparent benefits (to the eyes of some at least. Others see lots of potential - observatories, rail launch facilities for unmanned probes/satellites for earth orbit/solar system, helium3, massive surface area for solar panels with no atmosphere to interfere, etc.). And yes, there are many good things which the money COULD be spent on here.
To face reality though, the money WON'T be spent on those good things here. We'll get more pork, business welfare, etc. I'd rather have it spent on a program that at least pays some scientists who might come up with something to benefit us all.
Well said. What the previous person seems to not be capable of seeing music or writing or invention as anything but property or that by artificially restricting said information you lessen the benefit for everyone. Aside from the artists and inventors and there can be a reward system for them that doesn't require artificial restrictions.
An alternate reward system is plausible if you stop to think about how much reward the inventors are actually getting currently (it's not that much).
What has occurred, information copying and distribution costs used to be relatively high and now they are relatively low. Unfortunately the middle men still want to charge the same prices as when the costs were high so they can keep their jobs which are no longer necessary or at least no longer needed to the same degree. The actual producers of information (the artists and inventors) have not received a higher portion of the money from the lowered costs. Thus they don't make that much per album/song.
As for possibilities for alternate rewards, one is already there for a creative person/group: branding. Selling of merchandise with the band name/slogan, box sets, dvds of concerts are all viable ways to make money even with allowing the music to be traded freely. Donations/endorsement deals/ad revenue from website, concerts could be others.
Personally, I think there are a multitude of NEW ways for people to make money off producing content without having to have an artificial shortage of said content.
Actually, there is at least one precedent with power lines IIRC. Basically the ruling was that the public was paying for the whole of the power line deployment and maintenance dollar for dollar, i.e. the company was NOT investing any of their own money in building infrastructure and as such, said infrastructure was the rightful property of the people.
There are a lot of similarities between the two situations unless the telcos paid for the infrastructure up front without tacking on charges to the end users to cover building it.
Unfettered access yes, but barriers have to be looked at like static defenses. A wall doesn't stop people, it just slows them down. You have to have active defense to compliment the wall. Intrusion detection, cameras, security personnel such that the slowed access is enough to allow response from people.
My point here would be, if you are having to take several levels of action to stop your employees from doing something you don't want them from doing, why did you hire them?
Because IT personnel, with the notable exception of the BOFH, don't usually have a say in who gets hired/fired?
Lock the case so that it takes bolt cutters or some equally destructive method to get inside. That and some cameras so the person who broke the case is on disk. Intrusion detection can also work though has a whole set of its own problems.
Likely would be easier than collecting pieces individually. Gathering up pieces close to an objects current orbit is easier as relative velocities are lower. A large disc (ok, very large) at geosynchronous orbit of a viscous, gluelike material (hard to keep like that in vacuum and temp range) would eventually gather any pieces within the radius of the disc from the orbit that aren't going retrograde or significantly outside of a circular orbit. Of course, that's probably the least dangerous of the garbage out there.
Then the more mass it gathers, the greater the range of relative velocities that it can take impacting. Movement to different orbits could be handled with launching off parts at high velocity (past escape velocity or angled such that they'll burn up).
Realistically, this is currently unfeasible, though might be doable in the not too distant future. Needed: core rail gun to launch projectiles for orbit adjustment, orientation thrusters, sufficient solar/nuclear power to operate rail gun, minirobot(s) capable of moving over junk pile to gather suitable pieces for launch and welding of junk together (assuming glue is untennable idea)
In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.
Railroad barons were in a sense, monopolies due to the high cost of entry into a new territory. Whether or not they were a natural monopoly can be debated.
If you/your client can't make money off a static website design in 14 years, then you don't deserve to be in business. Static, mind you, because any changes would be covered by copyright for an additional 14 years after that point.
The point of copyright and patent (originally) was to encourage inovation and reward the creators by granting a temporary monopoly on their content/idea. To this end, current law fails miserably because much of the current benefit does not go to the inventor/artist/musician but instead to some company.
Fantastic, I'm really looking forward to the Ibiza-style boom-boom-loop remixes of "Day Tripper", cover versions of "Yesterday" by this week's 13-year-old teenie pop sensation, and "We Can Work It Out" as the background music in party political broadcasts.
I've seen this argument before when disney was lobbying to get copyright extended. The problem becomes where (or when) do you draw the line? At what point can the copyright holder have no clue what the original creator's intent was? Should even the creator be able to block derivative works after a certain period of time?
In these times, it is far easier to capitalize on an idea and make a profit quickly than it was when the copyright laws were first created. Copyright laws should not be longer than they were originally with the possible exception for art and then only the lifetime of the artist.
Re:Single component need for full realization
on
The Year of the HTPC
·
· Score: 1
Copyright law still allows fair use, though the increasing rentable legistators are working to close up any and all loopholes.
Someone hit the nail on the head about the DMCA when they commented that pirates were going to stop copying with the addition of another law. It was already illegal to distribute copyrighted works. DMCA just makes it illegal to do anything with legally purchased content.
Suppose, on the other hand, the testor asks questions such as: "What's the meaning of Life?", "Please compare Emily Dickenson to Thoreau", or "What do you dream about?". While specific responses might be able to used, provided the programmer has guessed in advanced what might be asked, to actually have a *conversation* about these, is not likely to happen any time soon with a computer near you.
There are many humans who would provide what might seem canned answers to those questions. "huh?" "who?!?" "sex!" "wtf are you ranting about?!"
Not meaningful conversations by any stretch, but passable as human.
Or perhaps sprayed a thin insulating coat over the components. Contacts for boards would still be problematic unless you sprayed over those (and gave up any hope of ever changing out boards ever again) with all boards and cables connected already.
One of the most dangerous times for humanity will be when space access is cheap (relatively). At least if we still have people willing to kill millions in the name of their ideology.
I'd have modded you up had I points. Earthbound terrorists aren't particularly frightening or relavent unless you happen to be in one of the few places where it hapens more than once a year. A terrorist in space though, with fuel to nudge/drop some ceramic bowling-ball sized pellets into the right trajectory though... Access to space is in effect access to WMD level weaponry, if you can get far enough up.
Say it saves 50% of the unladen weight. If your Galaxy cargo plane (above) had that savings that would still be 187,000 lbs. 466,000 vs 653,000 lbs of cargo capacity. That's a 40% gain in capacity. Nothing to sneeze at at the costs of air freight.
If as part of their weakened copyright/IP laws, they required making the source code of any software available then your example of the linux distro is no different than a company taking and forking the existing codebase.
As far as musicians and authors, the current copyright system does not benefit them either, at least not as much as it benefits corporations. A weakened copyright with shorter terms would not harm the creators of content much if at all.
Very nice. Most people don't seem to catch that the furthest extreme form of "libertarianism" becomes anarchy and that not all force is blatant.
Also by his argument the mafia would be a completely legitimate business and that government was wrong to come in and oppress the expression of the free market.
User content would be the equivalent of towns, not a starting point for enemy/ai/mobile attacks but houses, villages, defensive structures. Any of those would have to be generated as random attacks (ala invasions) or from game mechanics (enemies being simulated to grow/expand or from PVP style factions). Balance would come from making construction cost, some nontrivial cost of game money and/or time. In game economics have been poor at best, with players having either too little or way too much influence. For user material of a new area/dungeon, that can be balanced by having the mobs be automatically assigned or assigned by GMs.
Anyway, my point being there are ways such a system could be implemented without being a problem.
I was thinking about this the other day, we need a DJ P2P network. Where radio can play and rate any music on it. Music should have a tag pointing to the band's website where CDs / merchandise can be sold directly benefitting the band.
Cost of entry for a new band would be minimal, just upload your song(s) and convince a DJ to check it out and rate it. Which isn't that hard, most of them are pretty sick of hearing the same old crap 15 times a day. This already happens with tapes but tapes aren't easy to distribute, whereas with this, distribution is automatic (as long as the DJ liked it and others check out the particular DJ's new song list).
The one comment on the south's secession from the US might not be necessary if you consider whether the slaves would've been for or against it and also if secession should require giving rights of emmigration to those that don't want to secede.
Part of the advantage of 3D vs. 2D in game development is that 2D requires a LOT more artists (and good ones to boot) to get a polished looking screen than does 3D. 3D the art is in the render engine and a little bit in texture selection/alignment.
Least that's my take on why so many games get done with 3D now.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is the past is indeterminate too. You can't go back to the "past" you came from unless you already had.
In the antiparticle time travel, you meet an antiparticle version of you at which point you 'turn around' and start going backwards and at some other point you turn back around to 'go forward' again. During the time you're going backwards, you past is now your future and thus, indeterminate. You are going into a different past in all probability. Thus, no violation of causality.
Note: this requires that the theory that every quantum possibility that can exist does exist along some other plane of reality be correct.
You are correct that I've never seen them chanting "Down with Al Queda!" But what may not be apperant to an outsider like you is that they don't think Al Queda has anything special to do with them.
To give another example that statement brings to mind would be requiring catholics (outside Ireland) to actively protest the IRA.
All you have to do is look at China in the middle ages turning its back on exploration to focus on the internal problems and ignoring the rest of the world to see where that sort of insular thinking leads.
Yes, it's expensive. Yes, there may be no immediately apparent benefits (to the eyes of some at least. Others see lots of potential - observatories, rail launch facilities for unmanned probes/satellites for earth orbit/solar system, helium3, massive surface area for solar panels with no atmosphere to interfere, etc.). And yes, there are many good things which the money COULD be spent on here.
To face reality though, the money WON'T be spent on those good things here. We'll get more pork, business welfare, etc. I'd rather have it spent on a program that at least pays some scientists who might come up with something to benefit us all.
Well said. What the previous person seems to not be capable of seeing music or writing or invention as anything but property or that by artificially restricting said information you lessen the benefit for everyone. Aside from the artists and inventors and there can be a reward system for them that doesn't require artificial restrictions.
An alternate reward system is plausible if you stop to think about how much reward the inventors are actually getting currently (it's not that much).
What has occurred, information copying and distribution costs used to be relatively high and now they are relatively low. Unfortunately the middle men still want to charge the same prices as when the costs were high so they can keep their jobs which are no longer necessary or at least no longer needed to the same degree. The actual producers of information (the artists and inventors) have not received a higher portion of the money from the lowered costs. Thus they don't make that much per album/song.
As for possibilities for alternate rewards, one is already there for a creative person/group: branding. Selling of merchandise with the band name/slogan, box sets, dvds of concerts are all viable ways to make money even with allowing the music to be traded freely. Donations/endorsement deals/ad revenue from website, concerts could be others.
Personally, I think there are a multitude of NEW ways for people to make money off producing content without having to have an artificial shortage of said content.
Actually, there is at least one precedent with power lines IIRC. Basically the ruling was that the public was paying for the whole of the power line deployment and maintenance dollar for dollar, i.e. the company was NOT investing any of their own money in building infrastructure and as such, said infrastructure was the rightful property of the people.
There are a lot of similarities between the two situations unless the telcos paid for the infrastructure up front without tacking on charges to the end users to cover building it.
Summarizing grandparent, physical access = 0WN3D
Unfettered access yes, but barriers have to be looked at like static defenses. A wall doesn't stop people, it just slows them down. You have to have active defense to compliment the wall. Intrusion detection, cameras, security personnel such that the slowed access is enough to allow response from people.
My point here would be, if you are having to take several levels of action to stop your employees from doing something you don't want them from doing, why did you hire them?
Because IT personnel, with the notable exception of the BOFH, don't usually have a say in who gets hired/fired?
Lock the case so that it takes bolt cutters or some equally destructive method to get inside. That and some cameras so the person who broke the case is on disk. Intrusion detection can also work though has a whole set of its own problems.
Likely would be easier than collecting pieces individually. Gathering up pieces close to an objects current orbit is easier as relative velocities are lower. A large disc (ok, very large) at geosynchronous orbit of a viscous, gluelike material (hard to keep like that in vacuum and temp range) would eventually gather any pieces within the radius of the disc from the orbit that aren't going retrograde or significantly outside of a circular orbit. Of course, that's probably the least dangerous of the garbage out there.
Then the more mass it gathers, the greater the range of relative velocities that it can take impacting. Movement to different orbits could be handled with launching off parts at high velocity (past escape velocity or angled such that they'll burn up).
Realistically, this is currently unfeasible, though might be doable in the not too distant future. Needed: core rail gun to launch projectiles for orbit adjustment, orientation thrusters, sufficient solar/nuclear power to operate rail gun, minirobot(s) capable of moving over junk pile to gather suitable pieces for launch and welding of junk together (assuming glue is untennable idea)
Because each car can only hold x people. Having multiple cars per shaft means more people can be moving at a given time.
In all my years on slashdot I have heard this question. I have yet to hear anyone show me what is an unhealthy market. Government is the only creator of monopolies. Free markets don't allow them in any way, shape or form for any extended period of time. All of the common examples (Standard Oil, Microsoft, etc) were not monopolies until government mandated licensing and regulatory structures, and even then, the companies were not monopolies in that they lowered prices to help the consumer buy more.
Railroad barons were in a sense, monopolies due to the high cost of entry into a new territory. Whether or not they were a natural monopoly can be debated.
If you/your client can't make money off a static website design in 14 years, then you don't deserve to be in business. Static, mind you, because any changes would be covered by copyright for an additional 14 years after that point.
The point of copyright and patent (originally) was to encourage inovation and reward the creators by granting a temporary monopoly on their content/idea. To this end, current law fails miserably because much of the current benefit does not go to the inventor/artist/musician but instead to some company.
Fantastic, I'm really looking forward to the Ibiza-style boom-boom-loop remixes of "Day Tripper", cover versions of "Yesterday" by this week's 13-year-old teenie pop sensation, and "We Can Work It Out" as the background music in party political broadcasts.
I've seen this argument before when disney was lobbying to get copyright extended. The problem becomes where (or when) do you draw the line? At what point can the copyright holder have no clue what the original creator's intent was? Should even the creator be able to block derivative works after a certain period of time?
In these times, it is far easier to capitalize on an idea and make a profit quickly than it was when the copyright laws were first created. Copyright laws should not be longer than they were originally with the possible exception for art and then only the lifetime of the artist.
Copyright law still allows fair use, though the increasing rentable legistators are working to close up any and all loopholes.
Someone hit the nail on the head about the DMCA when they commented that pirates were going to stop copying with the addition of another law. It was already illegal to distribute copyrighted works. DMCA just makes it illegal to do anything with legally purchased content.
What about with non-antenna HD sources such as cable/satellite? (i.e. what most people that are making a HTPC are going to be using)
Actually I am curious if there is anything like that out currently.
There are many humans who would provide what might seem canned answers to those questions. "huh?" "who?!?" "sex!" "wtf are you ranting about?!"
Not meaningful conversations by any stretch, but passable as human.
Or perhaps sprayed a thin insulating coat over the components. Contacts for boards would still be problematic unless you sprayed over those (and gave up any hope of ever changing out boards ever again) with all boards and cables connected already.
One of the most dangerous times for humanity will be when space access is cheap (relatively). At least if we still have people willing to kill millions in the name of their ideology.
I'd have modded you up had I points. Earthbound terrorists aren't particularly frightening or relavent unless you happen to be in one of the few places where it hapens more than once a year. A terrorist in space though, with fuel to nudge/drop some ceramic bowling-ball sized pellets into the right trajectory though... Access to space is in effect access to WMD level weaponry, if you can get far enough up.
don't you mean 44 knot wind at 45 degrees for a 30 knot crosswind component?
Say it saves 50% of the unladen weight. If your Galaxy cargo plane (above) had that savings that would still be 187,000 lbs. 466,000 vs 653,000 lbs of cargo capacity. That's a 40% gain in capacity. Nothing to sneeze at at the costs of air freight.
If as part of their weakened copyright/IP laws, they required making the source code of any software available then your example of the linux distro is no different than a company taking and forking the existing codebase.
As far as musicians and authors, the current copyright system does not benefit them either, at least not as much as it benefits corporations. A weakened copyright with shorter terms would not harm the creators of content much if at all.
Houseguest takes the cake on product placement, basically being a hour and a half ad for mcdonalds.
Very nice. Most people don't seem to catch that the furthest extreme form of "libertarianism" becomes anarchy and that not all force is blatant.
Also by his argument the mafia would be a completely legitimate business and that government was wrong to come in and oppress the expression of the free market.
User content would be the equivalent of towns, not a starting point for enemy/ai/mobile attacks but houses, villages, defensive structures. Any of those would have to be generated as random attacks (ala invasions) or from game mechanics (enemies being simulated to grow/expand or from PVP style factions). Balance would come from making construction cost, some nontrivial cost of game money and/or time. In game economics have been poor at best, with players having either too little or way too much influence. For user material of a new area/dungeon, that can be balanced by having the mobs be automatically assigned or assigned by GMs.
Anyway, my point being there are ways such a system could be implemented without being a problem.
I was thinking about this the other day, we need a DJ P2P network. Where radio can play and rate any music on it. Music should have a tag pointing to the band's website where CDs / merchandise can be sold directly benefitting the band.
Cost of entry for a new band would be minimal, just upload your song(s) and convince a DJ to check it out and rate it. Which isn't that hard, most of them are pretty sick of hearing the same old crap 15 times a day. This already happens with tapes but tapes aren't easy to distribute, whereas with this, distribution is automatic (as long as the DJ liked it and others check out the particular DJ's new song list).
The one comment on the south's secession from the US might not be necessary if you consider whether the slaves would've been for or against it and also if secession should require giving rights of emmigration to those that don't want to secede.
Part of the advantage of 3D vs. 2D in game development is that 2D requires a LOT more artists (and good ones to boot) to get a polished looking screen than does 3D. 3D the art is in the render engine and a little bit in texture selection/alignment.
Least that's my take on why so many games get done with 3D now.