There is no benefit for the oil companies to develop and market an alternative technology until all the oil is gone.
Are you kidding? If they can make oil using an alternate technology for cheaper than they can get oil out of the ground then there is every benefit. They could _bury_ the competition!
1. Discover alternate technology 2. Sell off existing oil assets while the alternate technology is unknown 3. Pay politicians (using funds from step 2) to outlaw the use of crude oil extracted from the ground. 4. Profit!
Same deal with copy protection on games. Only the people who buy the product legally have to suffer with it (was it Red Alert 2 that came with copy protection that just didn't work on a significant number of CD drives?). The only people they'll really piss off are their customers.
Not sure where you are, but in Australia the pay tv channels advertise movies "that you won't see on DVD this year". For free-to-air stations it's the same as where you are though.
You're right, it does. However, Conservation of Energy also says that you can't get energy from a couple of parallel plates sitting closely together, but we can and do. See the Casimir effect.
It says nothing of the sort. If it took less energy to put the system back to original energy state (plates apart again) than you got out of them being pushed together then you might be on to something.
Think about a heavy object falling to earth. You can get energy out of that system, but in order to put the system back to its original state it's going to take more energy than you got out of it in the first place, so there is no net energy gain.
The terms 'Zero Point Energy' and 'Casmir effect' are tossed around a lot in descriptions of perpetual motion systems, either because the inventors don't understand them or because they know other people don't understand them, but there is nothing about them that has ever been demonstrated to violate the 'laws' of conservation of energy.
There's no need to go rewriting anything just yet.
I can say such things with complete certainty. If I am ever proved wrong, people will be far more interested in the proof than the fact I was wrong in the first place, so I can just slink away while nobody's looking:)
So it could be sufficient to replace the image with something that the inspector doesn't _want_ to look at. Sort of like a "somebody else's problem" solution. Your code would pass inspection because it would appear to have overlaid the original part of the image with the hardcoded image stored in code (the unsightly image), but there would be a bug which only copies every second pixel or something. Anyone looking at the redacted image wouldn't notice that the original data is still visible simply because they would have to look at the unsightly image too closely. They'd just rubber stamp the solution and say it passed, and then go and lie down for a bit.
Alternatively, you could go the opposite way instead and use an image which would distract the attention of the inspector enough that they wouldn't notice. Something with breasts would probably do it.
I recently investigated a problem in MS Outlook where an option was set to never show the body of the email when viewing the email, it could only be viewed when forwarding. There were actually a bunch of tick box options to enable and disable this behavior. Reminds me of the Far Side comic with a passenger in an airplane reaching down to adjust his seat and accidentally about to toggle the 'wings stay on / wings fall off' switch.
Your argument doesn't match the exact circumstances either
It doesn't, but I was responding to a comment that stated 'if I bought it then I can do anything I want to it'. I wasn't aware of the US gun laws, but certainly here in Australia we have very strict rules for anything with more power than a pea shooter. I think semi-automatic weapons are a big no-no, it's even illegal to have one in your possession.
but a piece of hardware is not licensed, it is sold
I agree with you (you'll notice the emoticon next to my original comment), but do a search for the stuff Cisco tried to pull when their hardware was re-sold. Their line was that you were free to sell the hardware, but the IOS (Cisco OS) software stored on the flash chip was licensed and not sold so unless the purchaser re-licensed the software from Cisco, they were using it illegally. Their case is slightly different as, for security reasons, it pays to keep up to date with the IOS releases, but I still think they were just being greedy.
"They're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve dismemberment anyway."
Executioner: Okay Mr Lawyer, I see you're here for a dismemberment. We'll just get you shaved... this may sting a little.
Mr Lawyer: Dismemberment? I thought I was just getting disbarred.
Executioner: Hmmm... well I have the order here... yes it does look like it has been fixed by someone... there is some liquid paper. Never mind, you can file your complaint up to 14 days after the order is carried out.
Fortunately the 'first sale' principal has held up in most places where it has been tested, so your argument seems to hold true.
But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic, saw of the barrel(s) to make it easier to conceal). Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect, and I think that is what was being tested here (although I think they were trying to make an existing law apply rather than testing a law brought in to address that problem specifically).
That one was available on the Amiga too. You could use the mouse which made cornering much easier, but if you moved it too far you got a visit from the guru.
The thing I loved about that game was that it took a few seconds of loading, a few clicks, and then you were racing (s/racing/crashing into other cars/). A bit longer if you wanted to tinker with your car settings but you probably already had those saved anyway.
Console games these days take ages to load up, ages to flip between screens, and ages to restart once you crash. PC games are a bit better but not much. I miss the old days:(
If I'm a godist, I might believe that God cures all ills, and never take my pneumonia-ridden son to the hospital. Bummer for my son but it was God's choice if he died.
I understand you were just making a point, I don't think i've ever met a 'godist' with such ridiculous views as those you have given your straw man. A godist would be more likely to believe that God is working through the health workers at the hospital to save his/her son.
Reminds me of a joke...
A devout godist is walking along a ledge and slips and falls, managing to grab onto a tree before falling into the shark infested waters below. He's hanging there, 50 feet above certain doom, when a boat comes along. The sailors call out asking if he needs any help, but he replies that God will save him and he doesn't need any assistance. A helicopter flies past and the pilot calls out asking if he needs any help. Again, he replies that God will save him and he doesn't need any assistance. An aeroplane flies by and the pilot calls out asking if he needs any help, but his response is the same. Eventually he grows tired and falls and is eaten by sharks.
He arrives in heaven and meets with God, and asks why he was forsaken. God replies "I don't know what went wrong... I sent a boat, a helicopter, an aeroplane..."
That wouldn't work. He'd wander around the planet for a bit and find one of the previous probes or rovers and then rig that up and communicate with earth at 300bps.
Maybe what would work is if NASA declared that the astronaut had a brainslug and was only trying to get back to Earth to infect the rest of humanity.
The far side of the moon might be well shielded from the RF interference from Earth, but without an atmosphere (and all the various layers that make it up) there is nothing shielding it from the RF interference from the sun and the billions of other sources in the universe....
Here in Belgium I saw an ad voor an asus EEE last week, but with shiny happy 'Windows XP' logo and specification besides it.
Almost all the ad's i've seen for eeepc's recently have shown them running XP, but the product being advertised is for the Linux version. In the fine print it says it is running Linux, and 'XP Compatible' is there too. The XP version is about $100 more almost everywhere I look.
just because something is recyclable does not mean there are no energy costs to recycle.
Along the same lines, there are plastics that are manufactured from otherwise-unused byproducts of petroleum production, so often you have to create more pollution to recycle than you would to just make new ones. Maybe burying them would be a better option? At least you are then taking at least some carbon out of the loop.
I think someone has put forward the case that it is more environmentally sound to bury paper in the ground and plant more trees to make paper from than it is to recycle paper into new paper products. Again, that way you are effectively removing CO2 from the air and putting it underground.
Hmmmm... well I think it is legal to make 1 (one) backup copy for personal use in case the original becomes damaged in some way. At least this way you get an original cover and a case to put it in (i guess, or maybe they just come wrapped in plastic?).
As for your question, any lawyer on slashdot is probably smart enough to know not to dispense legal advice on slashdot. Any non-lawyer on slashdot who dispenses legal advice is probably an idiot who doesn't know what (s)he's talking about and should be ignored.
(i'm in the latter category, in case you hadn't already guessed)
Slashdot Mirror
Are you kidding? If they can make oil using an alternate technology for cheaper than they can get oil out of the ground then there is every benefit. They could _bury_ the competition!
1. Discover alternate technology
2. Sell off existing oil assets while the alternate technology is unknown
3. Pay politicians (using funds from step 2) to outlaw the use of crude oil extracted from the ground.
4. Profit!
I think you may have stumbled upon what really happened to the dinosaurs.
Well... the last hamburger I ate almost certainly didn't have any ham in it (It may not have had any beef in it either but that's another story :)
Google for 'steamed hams' too.
Same deal with copy protection on games. Only the people who buy the product legally have to suffer with it (was it Red Alert 2 that came with copy protection that just didn't work on a significant number of CD drives?). The only people they'll really piss off are their customers.
Not sure where you are, but in Australia the pay tv channels advertise movies "that you won't see on DVD this year". For free-to-air stations it's the same as where you are though.
It says nothing of the sort. If it took less energy to put the system back to original energy state (plates apart again) than you got out of them being pushed together then you might be on to something.
Think about a heavy object falling to earth. You can get energy out of that system, but in order to put the system back to its original state it's going to take more energy than you got out of it in the first place, so there is no net energy gain.
The terms 'Zero Point Energy' and 'Casmir effect' are tossed around a lot in descriptions of perpetual motion systems, either because the inventors don't understand them or because they know other people don't understand them, but there is nothing about them that has ever been demonstrated to violate the 'laws' of conservation of energy.
There's no need to go rewriting anything just yet.
I can say such things with complete certainty. If I am ever proved wrong, people will be far more interested in the proof than the fact I was wrong in the first place, so I can just slink away while nobody's looking
So it could be sufficient to replace the image with something that the inspector doesn't _want_ to look at. Sort of like a "somebody else's problem" solution. Your code would pass inspection because it would appear to have overlaid the original part of the image with the hardcoded image stored in code (the unsightly image), but there would be a bug which only copies every second pixel or something. Anyone looking at the redacted image wouldn't notice that the original data is still visible simply because they would have to look at the unsightly image too closely. They'd just rubber stamp the solution and say it passed, and then go and lie down for a bit.
Alternatively, you could go the opposite way instead and use an image which would distract the attention of the inspector enough that they wouldn't notice. Something with breasts would probably do it.
Can I have my $100 gift certificate now?
I recently investigated a problem in MS Outlook where an option was set to never show the body of the email when viewing the email, it could only be viewed when forwarding. There were actually a bunch of tick box options to enable and disable this behavior. Reminds me of the Far Side comic with a passenger in an airplane reaching down to adjust his seat and accidentally about to toggle the 'wings stay on / wings fall off' switch.
I'm not sure that the legal system would differentiate much between 'own' and 'you have it in your possession and behave as if you owned it'.
And what about if the 12 inches of barrel just wore down through normal use?
It doesn't, but I was responding to a comment that stated 'if I bought it then I can do anything I want to it'. I wasn't aware of the US gun laws, but certainly here in Australia we have very strict rules for anything with more power than a pea shooter. I think semi-automatic weapons are a big no-no, it's even illegal to have one in your possession.
I agree with you (you'll notice the emoticon next to my original comment), but do a search for the stuff Cisco tried to pull when their hardware was re-sold. Their line was that you were free to sell the hardware, but the IOS (Cisco OS) software stored on the flash chip was licensed and not sold so unless the purchaser re-licensed the software from Cisco, they were using it illegally. Their case is slightly different as, for security reasons, it pays to keep up to date with the IOS releases, but I still think they were just being greedy.
Executioner: Okay Mr Lawyer, I see you're here for a dismemberment. We'll just get you shaved... this may sting a little.
Mr Lawyer: Dismemberment? I thought I was just getting disbarred.
Executioner: Hmmm... well I have the order here... yes it does look like it has been fixed by someone... there is some liquid paper. Never mind, you can file your complaint up to 14 days after the order is carried out.
Mr Lawyer: but... but... *screams*
Unless it's licensed, not sold :)
Fortunately the 'first sale' principal has held up in most places where it has been tested, so your argument seems to hold true.
But to stretch your argument until it breaks, if you buy a gun then it's yours, but you still aren't allowed to modify it in such a way that it is illegal (eg upgrade it to semi automatic, saw of the barrel(s) to make it easier to conceal). Likewise if a law is introduced that says you cannot modify your games console to allow it to play illegal games then your argument is incorrect, and I think that is what was being tested here (although I think they were trying to make an existing law apply rather than testing a law brought in to address that problem specifically).
That one was available on the Amiga too. You could use the mouse which made cornering much easier, but if you moved it too far you got a visit from the guru.
:(
The thing I loved about that game was that it took a few seconds of loading, a few clicks, and then you were racing (s/racing/crashing into other cars/). A bit longer if you wanted to tinker with your car settings but you probably already had those saved anyway.
Console games these days take ages to load up, ages to flip between screens, and ages to restart once you crash. PC games are a bit better but not much. I miss the old days
Don't they have to continually clear rainforest to grow that sugar cane though?
I understand you were just making a point, I don't think i've ever met a 'godist' with such ridiculous views as those you have given your straw man. A godist would be more likely to believe that God is working through the health workers at the hospital to save his/her son.
Reminds me of a joke...
A devout godist is walking along a ledge and slips and falls, managing to grab onto a tree before falling into the shark infested waters below. He's hanging there, 50 feet above certain doom, when a boat comes along. The sailors call out asking if he needs any help, but he replies that God will save him and he doesn't need any assistance. A helicopter flies past and the pilot calls out asking if he needs any help. Again, he replies that God will save him and he doesn't need any assistance. An aeroplane flies by and the pilot calls out asking if he needs any help, but his response is the same. Eventually he grows tired and falls and is eaten by sharks.
He arrives in heaven and meets with God, and asks why he was forsaken. God replies "I don't know what went wrong... I sent a boat, a helicopter, an aeroplane..."
That wouldn't work. He'd wander around the planet for a bit and find one of the previous probes or rovers and then rig that up and communicate with earth at 300bps.
Maybe what would work is if NASA declared that the astronaut had a brainslug and was only trying to get back to Earth to infect the rest of humanity.
A foot we can probably manage now. A whole astronaut is probably even possible with current technology, maybe we could even get one there alive!
Getting the astronaut home again though is the real problem...
The far side of the moon might be well shielded from the RF interference from Earth, but without an atmosphere (and all the various layers that make it up) there is nothing shielding it from the RF interference from the sun and the billions of other sources in the universe....
This morning I felt like I was far from adapted to 1G. 1/6G would have been just the thing to help me get out of bed!
Almost all the ad's i've seen for eeepc's recently have shown them running XP, but the product being advertised is for the Linux version. In the fine print it says it is running Linux, and 'XP Compatible' is there too. The XP version is about $100 more almost everywhere I look.
Along the same lines, there are plastics that are manufactured from otherwise-unused byproducts of petroleum production, so often you have to create more pollution to recycle than you would to just make new ones. Maybe burying them would be a better option? At least you are then taking at least some carbon out of the loop.
I think someone has put forward the case that it is more environmentally sound to bury paper in the ground and plant more trees to make paper from than it is to recycle paper into new paper products. Again, that way you are effectively removing CO2 from the air and putting it underground.
A zero layer disk. I'd like to see that
Hmmmm... well I think it is legal to make 1 (one) backup copy for personal use in case the original becomes damaged in some way. At least this way you get an original cover and a case to put it in (i guess, or maybe they just come wrapped in plastic?).
As for your question, any lawyer on slashdot is probably smart enough to know not to dispense legal advice on slashdot. Any non-lawyer on slashdot who dispenses legal advice is probably an idiot who doesn't know what (s)he's talking about and should be ignored.
(i'm in the latter category, in case you hadn't already guessed)