Assuming that the road condition is good, and the car is mechanically able to perform at the necessary level (both big potential issues at 100MPH), then it's the relative speeds of the traffic which will put a strain on peoples' "capabilities". You don't really feel how fundamental a concept "relative speeds" is until you've driven on the equivalent of the Autobahn.
Especially as an American since I'm not used to the km/h ratings, I would often discover afterwards that I had been doing 100-110MPH, even though I was just following the flow of the traffic. It didn't feel all that different to me than driving 60MPH in the U.S.
Of course, if you get into a wreck, then that 100MPH is going to be a big factor in the resultant damage - but it's not as big a factor w/regards to peoples' capabilities as you are playing it up to be.
The only principled stand against the second problem is to not consume their product - don't buy it, don't download it, don't infringe on its copyright.
The more effective "principled stand" is to work as hard as possible to throw out political representatives who prioritise the profit-margins of corporations over the property rights of individuals.
It is, of course, possible that the political system is so completely broken that there is no legal way to achieve such an outcome, but it's worth a try & might give the political-elite a little wakeup call about where their "right to govern" is actually derived, since they seem to have forgotten.
That's the nature of a free market. If the RIAA/MPAA's members were truly providing a service or good that you thought was worth the money, you would've bought it (or gone without:-). Since they weren't, you didn't - but you had to "not buy it" illegally.
I have no idea why IP proponents think that "Intellectual Property" has anything to do with capitalism. It's basically a socialist experiment to "encourage innovation", but the implementation has gone horribly wrong.
Dunno 'bout that, the "moron" politicians that I'm used to seeing practice reducing an incredibly complex situation down to a couple of sound bites, since that's the only footage that the media will report.
The "scary" moron politicians are the ones who believe that those situations really _are_ as simple as those sound bites.
The part about keeping a perfectly straight face while lying sounds perfectly accurate though.
I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of mindshare Sony wants - even complete non-geeks in my extended family have heard about the Sony rootdisk fiasco (although they don't understand kind what it was about, just that it was something that Sony was doing to try and screw their customers), and they haven't been hearing it from me (the family techie slave).
I've also heard indications that they're not real happy with the complexity or reliability of their various bits of Sony electronics either (a lot of which I think is due to Sony-Content's perpetual attempts to control what the consumer can do with the content that they buy).
At some point Sony consumer electronics is going to have to cut their content division loose to fend for itself, or else Sony is going to get a "strong" reputation as a has-been tech giant that can no longer create anything relevant for today's marketplace.
Communism does not mandate a dictatorship or oligarchy.
Actually, I believe that Marx said that the "revolutionaries" would have to pass through a totalitarianism form of government on its way to the communist ideal (to have enough power to break down any resistance by the well-resourced capitalists).
Unfortunately, so-called Marxist revolutionaries seem to get stuck once they've got that totalitarianist form of government set up, and never get to the commune part (although they have no problems calling themselves communists).
A more cynical person might suspect that many of those revolutionaries never intended to reach the communist ideal in the first place, and were using Communism as a recruiting tool to trick the "common people" into supporting the revolution.
John McCain is a great mix of qualities from both parties while being independent enough to avoid the sheep speak of the parties--minus right now (as he's campaigning for the primaries and doesn't want to lose the primaries again)
McCain has sold his soul to the neo-cons. He might've been somebody to respect once, but if you trust him for anything now, you're making just as big a mistake as voting for Dubya the second time.
If you're working at a huge company like HP, you're not that sort of person. You're mediocre, that's why you're there.
Gee, nice generalisation. Are you speaking from the bitter experience of being one of those "mediocre" people, or just rationalising because you couldn't hack it?
While being in a small business is fun (as long as you can deal with the overwork stress), there are certain kinds of projects that some people want to work on that can _only_ be possible through an organization with sufficient resources.
You aren't going to see any small businesses making a semiconductor fab, or building a full-size passenger jet airplane - or even a massive software project. A small company might work on a tiny bit of such a project, but they will be doing it on behalf of those big companies that you have so much contempt for, and they will be working under the direction of those so-called "mediocre" people.
"intellectual property" is a critical industry to the US economy
It's only critical in that its current form & implementation will ensure that the U.S. is unable to compete technologically & economically with other countries that have "looser" IP protection.
Setting aside the fact that Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase, there's no denying that at least some "public" figures look at the law like that (as a means of controlling the populace).
I've always thought that it would've been a good idea for the Constitution to explicitly prevent the disenfranchisement of criminals. While most folks seem to be horrified at the idea of letting felons vote, I think it would be a good form of negative feedback against legislators - if legislators do things that cause a lot of people to become criminals, then they have created a large bloc of people who will vote against them.
As far as "problems" with allowing criminals to vote, if your laws are sane & generally accomodates the "common sense" of the public, then there shouldn't be enough criminals to have any significant effect. If you _do_ start seeing the "criminal" voting bloc having significant effects, then that's a strong indication that the laws that are being passed are not reflective of the desires of the overall populace.
snopes is your friend. While she is certainly guilty of being a gullible butthead and spreading North Vietnamese propaganda, a great of the "traitorous" acts that she was accused of turned out be fabrications by a Fonda-hater which were mixed in with stuff that she really _did_ do, to make the lies more realistic and harder to figure out what was real or not.
That's because a "scientist" who created a study that said "Everything's A-OK" is just being a complete liar. Only an idealogue would make a report that says that the world was completely "A-OK".
Whether or not you buy into global warming, it's a no-brainer that the world's climate is changing _somewhere_, such a change is going to cause some stress to the inhabitants of that area, and any report with a shred of honesty is going to point that out.
The person generating such a report might disagree with other people on the driving forces and what might be an effective response to those changes (we might just have to "suck it up"), but anyone who flat out claims that "Everything's A-OK" is just not being honest, and their so-called study can be dismissed without fear of missing anything important.
Is it the fact that they are government-supported that you use as criteria to ignore them, or that they are doomsayers, or that they are both?
As a thought experiment, if the majority of top government-supported astronomers claimed that there was an 80% chance that a 2-mile-diameter asteroid would strike the Earth head-on in the next few years and cause an Extinction-Level-Event, would you support a global effort to try and do something to save humanity? Or just hope for that 20% chance? What if they claimed only a 50% chance? Are those good enough odds to risk our future?
How about if there were a few crackpots & corporate-subsidized "scientists" (whose sponsors stood to lose a lot of money due to the diversion of resources) that vehemently denied such an event was going to occur?
Of course, the main difference between the asteroid scenario & global warming is that there is enough uncertainty on the global warming issue that it is easier for the people "with agendas" to completely bury any useful or rational conclusions underneath an avalanche of propaganda-noise. Short-term orbital mechanics is a bit more deterministic, and would be harder to refute.
Such a country had better be self-sufficient. There are all kinds of nasty economic tricks that a big country can do to a small one if the small country doesn't "play by the rules".
Nobody gives a damn how hard it was for you; they only care if the price you demand is one they're willing to pay.
Yeah, that's the free market for you. If people aren't willing to pay a certain price for a product or service, then it isn't worth that price - no matter how much effort/time/resources you put into it.
I'm not entirely sure where "creators" got such a sense of entitlement that they believe that their product/services are somehow so "special" that they deserve special treatment over this simple principle.
Gee, as a layperson, who should I listen to: people who have spent their entire lives studying a phenomenon, or assholes who pull random lies out of their rear? What a tough decision...
It's probably a direct translation of the abbreviation H2O, instead of reflecting the physical structure of the molecule. Probably also psychologically sounds a little better (no "hydro" repetition).
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that the road condition is good, and the car is mechanically able to perform at the necessary level (both big potential issues at 100MPH), then it's the relative speeds of the traffic which will put a strain on peoples' "capabilities". You don't really feel how fundamental a concept "relative speeds" is until you've driven on the equivalent of the Autobahn.
Especially as an American since I'm not used to the km/h ratings, I would often discover afterwards that I had been doing 100-110MPH, even though I was just following the flow of the traffic. It didn't feel all that different to me than driving 60MPH in the U.S.
Of course, if you get into a wreck, then that 100MPH is going to be a big factor in the resultant damage - but it's not as big a factor w/regards to peoples' capabilities as you are playing it up to be.
Maybe they'll be able to hear via "bone conduction" if we use a large mallet to get our point across...
The more effective "principled stand" is to work as hard as possible to throw out political representatives who prioritise the profit-margins of corporations over the property rights of individuals.
It is, of course, possible that the political system is so completely broken that there is no legal way to achieve such an outcome, but it's worth a try & might give the political-elite a little wakeup call about where their "right to govern" is actually derived, since they seem to have forgotten.
That's the nature of a free market. If the RIAA/MPAA's members were truly providing a service or good that you thought was worth the money, you would've bought it (or gone without :-). Since they weren't, you didn't - but you had to "not buy it" illegally.
I have no idea why IP proponents think that "Intellectual Property" has anything to do with capitalism. It's basically a socialist experiment to "encourage innovation", but the implementation
has gone horribly wrong.
Obvious: Death by Paper Cut. Far, far worse than the other two alternatives. (Ow just thinking about it...)
Haven't you heard? In today's fast-moving & hip society, truth is _so_ passe...
Dunno 'bout that, the "moron" politicians that I'm used to seeing practice reducing an incredibly complex situation down to a couple of sound bites, since that's the only footage that the media will report.
The "scary" moron politicians are the ones who believe that those situations really _are_ as simple as those sound bites.
The part about keeping a perfectly straight face while lying sounds perfectly accurate though.
I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of mindshare Sony wants - even complete non-geeks in my extended family have heard about the Sony rootdisk fiasco (although they don't understand kind what it was about, just that it was something that Sony was doing to try and screw their customers), and they haven't been hearing it from me (the family techie slave).
I've also heard indications that they're not real happy with the complexity or reliability of their various bits of Sony electronics either (a lot of which I think is due to Sony-Content's perpetual attempts to control what the consumer can do with the content that they buy).
At some point Sony consumer electronics is going to have to cut their content division loose to fend for itself, or else Sony is going to get a "strong" reputation as a has-been tech giant that can no longer create anything relevant for today's marketplace.
Actually, I believe that Marx said that the "revolutionaries" would have to pass through a totalitarianism form of government on its way to the communist ideal (to have enough power to break down any resistance by the well-resourced capitalists).
Unfortunately, so-called Marxist revolutionaries seem to get stuck once they've got that totalitarianist form of government set up, and never get to the commune part (although they have no problems calling themselves communists).
A more cynical person might suspect that many of those revolutionaries never intended to reach the communist ideal in the first place, and were using Communism as a recruiting tool to trick the "common people" into supporting the revolution.
McCain has sold his soul to the neo-cons. He might've been somebody to respect once, but if you trust him for anything now, you're making just as big a mistake as voting for Dubya the second time.
Gee, nice generalisation. Are you speaking from the bitter experience of being one of those "mediocre" people, or just rationalising because you couldn't hack it?
While being in a small business is fun (as long as you can deal with the overwork stress), there are certain kinds of projects that some people want to work on that can _only_ be possible through an organization with sufficient resources.
You aren't going to see any small businesses making a semiconductor fab, or building a full-size passenger jet airplane - or even a massive software project. A small company might work on a tiny bit of such a project, but they will be doing it on behalf of those big companies that you have so much contempt for, and they will be working under the direction of those so-called "mediocre" people.
It's only critical in that its current form & implementation will ensure that the U.S. is unable to compete technologically & economically with other countries that have "looser" IP protection.
I sure wish that front-loading washers were cheaper in the U.S. than the top-load models. I would've got one a long time ago.
Setting aside the fact that Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase, there's no denying that at least some "public" figures look at the law like that (as a means of controlling the populace).
I've always thought that it would've been a good idea for the Constitution to explicitly prevent the disenfranchisement of criminals. While most folks seem to be horrified at the idea of letting felons vote, I think it would be a good form of negative feedback against legislators - if legislators do things that cause a lot of people to become criminals, then they have created a large bloc of people who will vote against them.
As far as "problems" with allowing criminals to vote, if your laws are sane & generally accomodates the "common sense" of the public, then there shouldn't be enough criminals to have any significant effect. If you _do_ start seeing the "criminal" voting bloc having significant effects, then that's a strong indication that the laws that are being passed are not reflective of the desires of the overall populace.
snopes is your friend. While she is certainly guilty of being a gullible butthead and spreading North Vietnamese propaganda, a great of the "traitorous" acts that she was accused of turned out be fabrications by a Fonda-hater which were mixed in with stuff that she really _did_ do, to make the lies more realistic and harder to figure out what was real or not.
The instant-runoff form of voting is also an interesting alternative.
That's because a "scientist" who created a study that said "Everything's A-OK" is just being a complete liar. Only an idealogue would make a report that says that the world was completely "A-OK".
Whether or not you buy into global warming, it's a no-brainer that the world's climate is changing _somewhere_, such a change is going to cause some stress to the inhabitants of that area, and any report with a shred of honesty is going to point that out.
The person generating such a report might disagree with other people on the driving forces and what might be an effective response to those changes (we might just have to "suck it up"), but anyone who flat out claims that "Everything's A-OK" is just not being honest, and their so-called study can be dismissed without fear of missing anything important.
Is it the fact that they are government-supported that you use as criteria to ignore them, or that they are doomsayers, or that they are both?
As a thought experiment, if the majority of top government-supported astronomers claimed that there was an 80% chance that a 2-mile-diameter asteroid would strike the Earth head-on in the next few years and cause an Extinction-Level-Event, would you support a global effort to try and do something to save humanity? Or just hope for that 20% chance? What if they claimed only a 50% chance? Are those good enough odds to risk our future?
How about if there were a few crackpots & corporate-subsidized "scientists" (whose sponsors stood to lose a lot of money due to the diversion of resources) that vehemently denied such an event was going to occur?
Of course, the main difference between the asteroid scenario & global warming is that there is enough uncertainty on the global warming issue that it is easier for the people "with agendas" to completely bury any useful or rational conclusions underneath an avalanche of propaganda-noise. Short-term orbital mechanics is a bit more deterministic, and would be harder to refute.
Such a country had better be self-sufficient. There are all kinds of nasty economic tricks that a big country can do to a small one if the small country doesn't "play by the rules".
Ah, then carry on & please ignore any irrelevant sounds coming from my direction :-)
If you haven't agreed to the CSS license, then you're not bound by its terms.
In the U.S. however, the MIAA can always slap you with a DMCA-suit if you pop up on their lawyer's radar...
Yeah, that's the free market for you. If people aren't willing to pay a certain price for a product or service, then it isn't worth that price - no matter how much effort/time/resources you put into it.
I'm not entirely sure where "creators" got such a sense of entitlement that they believe that their product/services are somehow so "special" that they deserve special treatment over this simple principle.
Feel free to try and respond in a way that makes more sense. I'll wait.
Gee, as a layperson, who should I listen to: people who have spent their entire lives studying a phenomenon, or assholes who pull random lies out of their rear? What a tough decision...
It's probably a direct translation of the abbreviation H2O, instead of reflecting the physical structure of the molecule. Probably also psychologically sounds a little better (no "hydro" repetition).