Sure, a lot of people used to make copies of tapes, and tapes of CDs. But for the most part, it was just to make mixed tapes, or else put the CD on a tape so you could play it in your car. For one thing, if there's some music you really like, you want it to sound as good as possible, and a tape of a tape or a tape of a CD sounds noticeably worse than the original. And of course, making a copy of a copy of a copy, would be out of the question. For another thing, at least in my experience, instances where a friend already has the CD or tape of the music you want are by far the exception rather than the rule. Contrasted to now, where anything I want I can download for free instantly... there is no comparison whatsoever.
Oh, they only WISH they could give me a pony. I'm perfectly capable of stealing ponies for free. If they want me to buy a CD, they'll have to clone a dinosaur for me.
Bollocks. I mean look up every "piracy" "statistics", they always talk about this and that much gazillions of good old bucks being lost because of piracy, yet no living human being has ever managed to give a reasonable and acceptable explanation about how those numbers make sense. Now they say they want to see how those numbers change if they sell non-drm-encumbered music ? Well, flip a coin, that'd make more sense to decide to continue or not. A better way would be to actually listen to what those pesky customers want.
What the customers what? The same that every customer whats, the perfect product at zero price. Unfortunately, someone has to get paid for making the product, so the customers can't have that in any sustainable system.
What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM. They've sold music with it for a while, and now they'll try 6 months without it, and see if their sales go up (because non-DRM files are more attractive to customers) or down (because non-DRM files spurs piracy, undermining sales). Sounds pretty rational to me.
The had a race to see who could build a robot to navigate across the desert the fastest, and none of the entrants completed the course... so they say, "okay, now who can navigate through a city the fastest?" Doesn't seem to me like the right time to raise the bar.
Well, take a good look at "free market" economies such as Russia has become since they evicted the Communists. It's fairly clear that in such unregulated, lassez-faire markets, the businessmen do consider things like murder as just ordinary business tactics. Laws against things like rape, extortion and murder are government regulation, and therefore evil because they inhibit the proper working of the Market.
The historic pirates of the 16th century and later were actually examples of businessmen, generally supported by their home government, but doing business in free, unregulated parts of the planet. They clearly weren't doing anything illegal, because there was no law in the areas where they operated. Considering them anything but businessmen and entrepreneurs is a misunderstanding of what was really going on back then (and is still going on in a few parts of the world).
(Some of us approve of a certain amount of government regulation.;-)
Free markets can only exist (at least among the sorts of humans we seem to have available today) when government laws are there to ensure fair play, and outlaw competition through killing the competitor, and such similar things that are going on in Russia. "Entrepreneurialism" is the name for competition WITHIN that civil realm of government protection. The valid purpose of government is to protect our freedoms, free trade being one of them.
Historical piracy happened because it was specifically condoned at first by the government, allowing private individuals to attack the commercial vessels of the rival nation and dispose of those persons and property however they chose. This was a barbaric law, and was eventually repealed, after which came most of the history of piracy, which was at that point simply the barbaric actions of private individuals which were in fact against the law -- individuals who ultimately had to be hunted down by their own governments.
This kind of thing always makes me wonder about the origin of tales that probably come to us from pre-history -- stuff like the Cain and Abel story. I can't help thinking that, at one time, these stories might have told of some much more important historical event than one brother killing another, and that, slowly, over time, they've been watered down into something that everyone understood in their current context -- one guy killing another.
There are many such ancient texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Testament of Adam and Eve, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jasher, and many others that have been preserved by the Ethiopians and others. Also the Vedas, and what we have of Egyptian mythology. It all comes from a common source and tells a common story. The story is an allegory for man's spiritual journey, but it's also, as you suggest, at least somewhat an allegory for mankind's natural history. (what is currently, to us, pre-history.)
What I believe to be possible references to the interactions between modern man and neanderthals, include * Gilgamesh and his race as the Neanderthals, and Enkidu, the subsequently-created uncivilized race as moderns. * "Sons of God" in various ancient texts as Neanderthals (being the original race of true humans), and "sons of men" as moderns. This is rare in the Bible, but common in what I believe to be more ancient versions of the stories. The notable comparison in the Bible is "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose" (which lead to hybrid races and angered God, eventually leading to the Flood). * References in older texts to "gods," and in nearly all to "the ancient race" are references (at least in the most literal sense) to the Neanderthal race, or the hybrid races. These stories were eventually perverted into polytheism, which is what we now think of when we hear of "gods," which is why a new formulation of the more ancient sacred texts was needed, i.e. the Bible, which was plainly monotheistic for those not sophisticated enough to understand it any way other than literally.
And something similar must have happened with earlier hominids. If they were fit enough to survive for millions of years, and after the arrival of a newer hominid they suddenly disappear, something must have changed in their environment to cause that extinction. The obvious culprit here is the arrival of the newer, better adapted hominid. And this doesn't have to be due to violent competition. Even the most peaceful species can cause another species' extinction by being just a little bit more effective at finding and eating the same resources.
The only way this kind of extinction may have been prevented is if there never was more than a single population of hominids that evolved as a whole into the new species. This sounds a bit unlikely to me.
The idea that homo sapiens were "better adapted" than Neanderthals, and that we "out-competed" them, is IMHO ridiculous. The Neanderthals were smarter, several times stronger, by any measure tougher, and they were more cold-adapted and living in an Ice Age. They didn't disappear as soon as our species came around. In fact, evidence suggests that their presence in Europe is what kept us in Africa until they started to decline. Why did they die out? It could be anything. Disease is certainly a possibility, as the longer a species is around the more time there is for effective pathogens to evolve and for genetic diseases to accumulate. But to think we can meaningfully hypothesize as to the cause, in the absence of any actual evidence, is slightly delusional. And to attribute their downfall to our own competition skills is more than slightly arrogant.
I think you're on the right track in terms of trying to understand evolution and God's role in the universe at the same time; however I think it's a mistake to make God a "God of the gaps," merely an explanation for what would otherwise have NO explanation. If God isn't present throughout the process of evolution, then why the long straight road progressing from bacteria to humans? Neodarwinists say it's just an engine fueled by fitness for reproduction and survival. Yet by any reasonable measure, bacteria are far more fit than humans for reproduction and survival. There are definite continuous trends in the lines of descent, such as the reduction of symmetry, and the increase of intelligence. But none of those trends jibe with the neodarwinist theory of it being driven by fitness for reproduction and survival. That fitness is only a constraint within which the evolutionary process must fit. The direction is altogether different. But back to the point, to understand correctly, we should see God's hand in ALL the laws of nature, not just the ones we don't understand yet.
The Bible is not literal. Period. It is a series of stories and ideas put into writing in ancient times to explain, back then, how they thought things came to be.
These two statements are contradictory. If it's not literal, then it's not an explanation of how the natural world came to be. If it is a explanation of how such things came to be, then it is literal.
To me, believing in Creationism is like saying "I believe the sky is green." It's just wrong. Yes, there is a degree of uncertainty in it, such as how "green" something is before it's green, but with science, we can break down light and find its wavelength and say "This light is blue." You can still believe that it is green, just as you can believe men walked the earth alongside dinosaurs, that a man with a boat carried two of EVERY species of animal on Earth for over a month after a God gave him the designs for it, and the first woman came from the ribs of the first man.
The vast majority of people who would call themselves creationists do not believe the kinds of things you're talking about. Nor do they necessarily disagree with the concept of evolution -- just the neodarwinian version of it. If you want to attack people with the most extreme positions, then you're obviously free to do so, but don't lump them in with everyone who believes that the universe is a creation of God. That's just reinforcing a prejudice that is ripping society apart.
should allow to be downloaded at a cheap enough rate so that folks will stop bothering to pirate (not steal; remember, pirates are simply a form of entrepeneurs).
Pirates are just entrepreneurs? Are you talking about the kind of pirate who steals, rapes and murders, or the kind that just steals???
Let me guess, you're the type of moron who thinks that not being allowed to shove your idiotic beliefs on decent people means you're being oppressed, right?
Ooo, good guess, but it turns out I'm not any kind of moron at all, but thanks for asking.
But for the record, I'd rather have a high school principle shoving his beliefs on me than the Supreme Court shoving their beliefs on me, as I can always find a new high school principle.
First of all, you'd build the tankers in space, you wouldn't try to launch them from earth. For getting the hydrogen, I would imagine they'd use something like modern dredges -- scraping the surface of the atmosphere without the actual vehicle getting close enough to have friction problems. Yeah, it's obviously grossly less efficient than anything we'd do here on earth. But once you have the virtually unlimited hydrogen energy source, efficiency becomes much less relevant. Yes, there are many technical hurdles, and anything like this would probably be at least hundreds of years out.
Actually most hydrogen is made from natural gas. It is cheaper to split CH4 than H20. What I want to know is how does this reduce CO2 emissions by just 80%? Burning H2 should produce NO Co2
Well, if you're getting your H2 from CH4, that C has to go somewhere.
Although, if we replaced all our oil needs with natural gas needs, I don't know how long that would last, or how long it would remain cheaper than getting H2 from water + another power source.
Using earth-based H2 power doesn't make a lot of sense, since there's no real energy-efficient way to make it. However, what if we (seriously) built enormous space tankers capable of making the trip to Jupiter and scraping H2 out of the surface of its atmosphere and compressing it into liquid to bring back ginormous amounts to earth? It's a long round-trip, but if there was a fleet making continuous deliveries, at some point this would scale to to the point where it was an incredibly cheap form of energy. The only real downside, is we're making the Earth no longer a closed system -- what will be the long-term effect of the added H2? Will the world's algae keep up with the loss of oxygen as we burn all of that?
It's important to be made aware of the mind control tactics used by our government. The only problem I've had with them is that I'm not sure if the contact lenses work or not.
That's why you should just stick with tin foil. Everyone knows that works. Believe me, if the government mind control was working on me, I'd know about it! But I have to go now -- I like to get my quarterly estimated income taxes paid nice and early.
Don't mess with CD writers, as they use powerful IR lasers, which you can't see and will blind you faster. DVD readers use diodes about the same as a cheap laser pointer.
It's not a 16x and the article specifically mentions that, would other speed burners still work?
Not if you want to burn stuff. (and who doesn't?) Slower burners will have successively lower-powered diodes. I found for CD burners it's roughly speed x 5 = power in mW. I'm not sure that it's also a roughly proportional relationship in DVD burners, but it would be a reasonable guess. If so, you have roughly 16x - 200mW 8x - 100mW 4x - 50mW etc
Well, apparently they're also responsible for putting the frickin lasers on the frickin cows.
I wonder if you could put fricken lasers on fricken chickens.
If you put 50 fricken lasers on the heads of 50 fricken chickens, and put them all together in a fricken checken pen, and watched to see who survived, and how much smoke was produced, would that be illegal? And would it soon replace dog fights and conventional cock fights? And would PETA object?
No I'm not high, quarter to 10 is just a bit early fo rme.
These instructions say to get a 16x DVD burner, which will be around a 200mW red laser. Anything slower will be less powerful. You could also build an IR laser (although potentially more dangerous and less fun) CD burners. A 52x CD burner will have about a 150mW IR laser; slower burners being proportionately less powerful.
I do have a green laser I picked up on eBay from some HK reseller a couple of years ago for $30-something.
Caveat Emptor -- when buying a "green laser" from ebay, you might want to verify that "green" is referring to the laser light, rather than the laser itself.
I agree with all the other posters who say the video should be removed and that this article should be pulled. First of all, this is a 200mW diode at the most. Yes, it's dangerous, but not to be confused with the much more powerful research lasers in these lovely anecdotes of instant mutilation being bandied about.
But pull the story??? Any moron can buy the same thing off any number of websites for a couple hundred bucks. Building one from a DVD burner is cheaper, but it requires a certain level of intelligence to succeed. I think a warning is sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, a lot of people used to make copies of tapes, and tapes of CDs. But for the most part, it was just to make mixed tapes, or else put the CD on a tape so you could play it in your car. For one thing, if there's some music you really like, you want it to sound as good as possible, and a tape of a tape or a tape of a CD sounds noticeably worse than the original. And of course, making a copy of a copy of a copy, would be out of the question. For another thing, at least in my experience, instances where a friend already has the CD or tape of the music you want are by far the exception rather than the rule. Contrasted to now, where anything I want I can download for free instantly... there is no comparison whatsoever.
Oh, they only WISH they could give me a pony. I'm perfectly capable of stealing ponies for free. If they want me to buy a CD, they'll have to clone a dinosaur for me.
What the customers what? The same that every customer whats, the perfect product at zero price. Unfortunately, someone has to get paid for making the product, so the customers can't have that in any sustainable system.
What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM. They've sold music with it for a while, and now they'll try 6 months without it, and see if their sales go up (because non-DRM files are more attractive to customers) or down (because non-DRM files spurs piracy, undermining sales). Sounds pretty rational to me.
The had a race to see who could build a robot to navigate across the desert the fastest, and none of the entrants completed the course... so they say, "okay, now who can navigate through a city the fastest?" Doesn't seem to me like the right time to raise the bar.
Free markets can only exist (at least among the sorts of humans we seem to have available today) when government laws are there to ensure fair play, and outlaw competition through killing the competitor, and such similar things that are going on in Russia. "Entrepreneurialism" is the name for competition WITHIN that civil realm of government protection. The valid purpose of government is to protect our freedoms, free trade being one of them.
Historical piracy happened because it was specifically condoned at first by the government, allowing private individuals to attack the commercial vessels of the rival nation and dispose of those persons and property however they chose. This was a barbaric law, and was eventually repealed, after which came most of the history of piracy, which was at that point simply the barbaric actions of private individuals which were in fact against the law -- individuals who ultimately had to be hunted down by their own governments.
There are many such ancient texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Testament of Adam and Eve, the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jasher, and many others that have been preserved by the Ethiopians and others. Also the Vedas, and what we have of Egyptian mythology. It all comes from a common source and tells a common story. The story is an allegory for man's spiritual journey, but it's also, as you suggest, at least somewhat an allegory for mankind's natural history. (what is currently, to us, pre-history.)
What I believe to be possible references to the interactions between modern man and neanderthals, include
* Gilgamesh and his race as the Neanderthals, and Enkidu, the subsequently-created uncivilized race as moderns.
* "Sons of God" in various ancient texts as Neanderthals (being the original race of true humans), and "sons of men" as moderns. This is rare in the Bible, but common in what I believe to be more ancient versions of the stories. The notable comparison in the Bible is "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose" (which lead to hybrid races and angered God, eventually leading to the Flood).
* References in older texts to "gods," and in nearly all to "the ancient race" are references (at least in the most literal sense) to the Neanderthal race, or the hybrid races. These stories were eventually perverted into polytheism, which is what we now think of when we hear of "gods," which is why a new formulation of the more ancient sacred texts was needed, i.e. the Bible, which was plainly monotheistic for those not sophisticated enough to understand it any way other than literally.
The idea that homo sapiens were "better adapted" than Neanderthals, and that we "out-competed" them, is IMHO ridiculous. The Neanderthals were smarter, several times stronger, by any measure tougher, and they were more cold-adapted and living in an Ice Age. They didn't disappear as soon as our species came around. In fact, evidence suggests that their presence in Europe is what kept us in Africa until they started to decline. Why did they die out? It could be anything. Disease is certainly a possibility, as the longer a species is around the more time there is for effective pathogens to evolve and for genetic diseases to accumulate. But to think we can meaningfully hypothesize as to the cause, in the absence of any actual evidence, is slightly delusional. And to attribute their downfall to our own competition skills is more than slightly arrogant.
I think you're on the right track in terms of trying to understand evolution and God's role in the universe at the same time; however I think it's a mistake to make God a "God of the gaps," merely an explanation for what would otherwise have NO explanation. If God isn't present throughout the process of evolution, then why the long straight road progressing from bacteria to humans? Neodarwinists say it's just an engine fueled by fitness for reproduction and survival. Yet by any reasonable measure, bacteria are far more fit than humans for reproduction and survival. There are definite continuous trends in the lines of descent, such as the reduction of symmetry, and the increase of intelligence. But none of those trends jibe with the neodarwinist theory of it being driven by fitness for reproduction and survival. That fitness is only a constraint within which the evolutionary process must fit. The direction is altogether different. But back to the point, to understand correctly, we should see God's hand in ALL the laws of nature, not just the ones we don't understand yet.
These two statements are contradictory. If it's not literal, then it's not an explanation of how the natural world came to be. If it is a explanation of how such things came to be, then it is literal.
The vast majority of people who would call themselves creationists do not believe the kinds of things you're talking about. Nor do they necessarily disagree with the concept of evolution -- just the neodarwinian version of it. If you want to attack people with the most extreme positions, then you're obviously free to do so, but don't lump them in with everyone who believes that the universe is a creation of God. That's just reinforcing a prejudice that is ripping society apart.
Pirates are just entrepreneurs? Are you talking about the kind of pirate who steals, rapes and murders, or the kind that just steals???
Ooo, good guess, but it turns out I'm not any kind of moron at all, but thanks for asking.
But for the record, I'd rather have a high school principle shoving his beliefs on me than the Supreme Court shoving their beliefs on me, as I can always find a new high school principle.
First of all, you'd build the tankers in space, you wouldn't try to launch them from earth. For getting the hydrogen, I would imagine they'd use something like modern dredges -- scraping the surface of the atmosphere without the actual vehicle getting close enough to have friction problems. Yeah, it's obviously grossly less efficient than anything we'd do here on earth. But once you have the virtually unlimited hydrogen energy source, efficiency becomes much less relevant. Yes, there are many technical hurdles, and anything like this would probably be at least hundreds of years out.
Well, if you're getting your H2 from CH4, that C has to go somewhere.
Although, if we replaced all our oil needs with natural gas needs, I don't know how long that would last, or how long it would remain cheaper than getting H2 from water + another power source.
I probably wasn't very clear, but that's the point I was trying to make.
Whomever dresses the most like you. (Or stands in the most similar location when getting their picture taken.)
Using earth-based H2 power doesn't make a lot of sense, since there's no real energy-efficient way to make it. However, what if we (seriously) built enormous space tankers capable of making the trip to Jupiter and scraping H2 out of the surface of its atmosphere and compressing it into liquid to bring back ginormous amounts to earth? It's a long round-trip, but if there was a fleet making continuous deliveries, at some point this would scale to to the point where it was an incredibly cheap form of energy. The only real downside, is we're making the Earth no longer a closed system -- what will be the long-term effect of the added H2? Will the world's algae keep up with the loss of oxygen as we burn all of that?
That's why you should just stick with tin foil. Everyone knows that works. Believe me, if the government mind control was working on me, I'd know about it! But I have to go now -- I like to get my quarterly estimated income taxes paid nice and early.
Don't mess with CD writers, as they use powerful IR lasers, which you can't see and will blind you faster. DVD readers use diodes about the same as a cheap laser pointer.
Not if you want to burn stuff. (and who doesn't?) Slower burners will have successively lower-powered diodes. I found for CD burners it's roughly speed x 5 = power in mW. I'm not sure that it's also a roughly proportional relationship in DVD burners, but it would be a reasonable guess.
If so, you have roughly
16x - 200mW
8x - 100mW
4x - 50mW
etc
BTW, the article isn't talking about IR lasers. DVD burners use red lasers. CD burners use IR lasers.
Or... see if you can give yourself a tan of your own design with an IR laser!
Well, apparently they're also responsible for putting the frickin lasers on the frickin cows.
I wonder if you could put fricken lasers on fricken chickens.
If you put 50 fricken lasers on the heads of 50 fricken chickens, and put them all together in a fricken checken pen, and watched to see who survived, and how much smoke was produced, would that be illegal? And would it soon replace dog fights and conventional cock fights? And would PETA object?
No I'm not high, quarter to 10 is just a bit early fo rme.
These instructions say to get a 16x DVD burner, which will be around a 200mW red laser. Anything slower will be less powerful. You could also build an IR laser (although potentially more dangerous and less fun) CD burners. A 52x CD burner will have about a 150mW IR laser; slower burners being proportionately less powerful.
Caveat Emptor -- when buying a "green laser" from ebay, you might want to verify that "green" is referring to the laser light, rather than the laser itself.
I agree with all the other posters who say the video should be removed and that this article should be pulled.
First of all, this is a 200mW diode at the most. Yes, it's dangerous, but not to be confused with the much more powerful research lasers in these lovely anecdotes of instant mutilation being bandied about.
But pull the story??? Any moron can buy the same thing off any number of websites for a couple hundred bucks. Building one from a DVD burner is cheaper, but it requires a certain level of intelligence to succeed. I think a warning is sufficient.