Yes, but she may learn to use keyboard shortcuts if they're more clearly presented to her. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying it's more likely to happen if she has a graphical interface at her fingertips clearly showing her what keys do what, mapped in relation to the keys, not the functions themselves (as you would see in the context menus).
First you call my viewpoint narrow-minded, then you agree with it?
If you read the last sentence of my post, you'd see that we essentially agree:
I could see this getting big once our injet capabilities have improved, and we can cheaply print OLEDs (and human organs someday:) )
It's naive to think that they will be able to replace all or even many keyboards in the short term with such new(not even invented yet) technology. It will take years, maybe even a decade or more to perfect the technologies necessary to mass-produce an economical OLED keyboard.
In the short-term, when these things are prohibitively expensive, they will probably be targeted to niche markets, like:
13 year olds who will be nagging their parents for these things
Yeah, but think of all the 13 year olds who will be nagging their parents for these things so they can 'keep up with the Joneses.'
It'll appeal to the same people who go for neon lights inside their half-transparent cases and stickers on everything - the Alienware crowd - except that this thing actually has a use.
Also, think of the two finger typists. There are still plenty of them out there. Those type of people would probably benefit greatly from such a device.
I could see this getting big once our injet capabilities have improved, and we can cheaply print OLEDs (and human organs someday:) )
Music is fact. It's a recording of the audible events that took place inside a recording studio. Synthesized music? I don't wanna go there =p
I guess you could argue that it's a record of the bits output by the synthesizer, but that's could be considered a stretch.
If your problem is with the legality of the broadcaster (web host in this case), replace 'napster' with 'radio' in my argument. Should I be allowed to record my local radio/tv station, cut it up into individual songs/shows, and post them in a directory online so people have a public record of the information that was publicly broadcast? The music/show was broadcast legally, with permission of the copyright holder, but redistribution is illegal because it is copyrighted.
I agree with you that these guys are slimeballs trying to cover their asses with a technicality, but legalizing unlicensed redistribution of copyrighted material kinda defeats the purpose of copyrights, no?
Do the ends(nailing a liar) justify the means(circumventing copyright law)?
I'm on your side, but I don't think that would apply to copyrighted information. Otherwise, any copyright could be circumvented in a matter of minutes.
Using the same logic as you used above, one could argue that Napster is a distributed directory of music, cached as they were ripped by users. Facts Thus protected by copyright claims.
I'd love to see someone try that defense in court.
I agree with the sibling poster who said that it would be comparable to Yahoo's directory. It can post a pointer, but not the actual content.
Firstly, IANAL
Yes, but the way copyright law works. You must be given explicit permission by a copyright holder, not 'not be forbidden to use the work'.
As much as I wish you were right, 'Fair Use' doesn't include redistribution.
If it did, then we wouldn't be having this whole napster/grokster debacle.
I agree with you mostly, however I think the problem is with the FDA approval process. I think our government is way too restrictive on what they allow us to put into our bodies.
If a drug is dangerous to other people (not just the person taking it), like crack cocaine, that's one thing. If a drug has potential to be beneficial to many people, and the only reason they can't use it is because no one has spent billions of dollars on medical trials, I believe those people should be allowed to put their own lives at risk by trying experimental medications.
For example, a biotech firm has developed a gene therapy that uses the p53 (apoptosis) gene to kill cancerous cells. The treatment has been shown to be extremely effective and is on the fasttrack approval process, with the only known side effect being pain at the site of injection. The drug cannot be released until the trials are done. The one that bugs me is a trial in which the treatment was given to several terminal patients. Most of them showed significant improvement, yet the study isn't complete until a 75% (IIRC) of them die because they 'need' to know exactly how much the lifespans were extended. Why the hell are they postponing the release of this treatment over something stupid like that? This could be helping so many people, and yet it's being held back. The treatment is actually being delayed because it's so effective. BS
It's about a free market where the government tells you how much money you can make off your own invention? Sounds like a pseudo-command economy to me.
Actually, you didn't write in this thread other then to say you won't be writing much in it.
If you'd read, you see that I wrote:
Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?
but I guess I didn't write that. Thanks for letting me know that.
Make sure to include sources as well as evidence showing that R&D on the creation would have been a mute point had such long legal monopolistic protection not been a factor.
I'm not writing a thesis to win an internet argument that will be forgotten in two days.
Why not pictures and interviews? Or a 90+ minute documentary? Or an under-oath sworn statement from a rich entrepreneur saying that he wouldn't have wasted oodles of money on something that was gonna be ripped off the moment he finished it?
Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop.
I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?
Just because the technology invited you does not mean the user of the technology did
<sarcasm>Just because the car killed the boy doesn't mean the user of the car did.</sarcasm>
So ignorance is now a solid defense (or rather, offense in this situation)? What ever happened to being responsible for your own property?
The owner left the device configured to ADVERTISE ITS PRESENCE and to negotiate and accept anonymous connections. This was not something beyond the owner's control. The manual to the router tells you how to configure it.
As was mentioned earlier. The logic that would lead to banning connections to wide open wireless access points could easily lead to banning connections to ANY computer network without the owner's prior consent. The words you are reading right now were sent to you by a server whose owner did not give you prior consent before connecting to it. Since you're such an upstanding citizen, are you going to turn yourself into the authorities for having committed a third degree felony?
No, it's more like expecting people to stay the hell off your lawn even though you didn't put up a fence or a no trespassing sign
Do you believe people walking on someone's lawn without prior consent should be a third degree felony?
What a horrible analogy. Lawns don't advertise their presence and negotiate/welcome 'connections' from strangers on the street. Connecting to a router requires the router's approval, PERIOD. The router's approval requires the user to leave it configured to do so and therefore the user's permission. Walking on a lawn requires no such thing.
In much the same way as you can't waive negligence and ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, not reading the manual doesn't get you off the hook, or make someone else culpable, unless our justice system is seriously screwed up.
If the planets and (most of) their moons had formed this way, wouldn't they tend to be more homogenous in composition? Or at least have progressive differences based on their distance from the Sun?
They do have progressive differences.
The inner planets are rocky, while the outer planets are gaseous(lots of hydrogen). Why? Heavy atoms are made in the sun's fusion reactions. They occasionally get shot out of the sun, and heavy particles are more affected by gravity than light ones, so they're likelier to find a body to collide with sooner. In fact, probably everything heavier than hydrogen was made in our sun(or some other star).
Moons can be made several ways. One of them is the way you described. Is it that hard to believe? Several planets have rings of dust and rocks. If you wait long enough, some of those particles will stick together.
Slightly off-topic:
Also, the mass of the moon isn't evenly distributed. There is a dense area inside it that's off-center that was attracted to earth moreso than the rest of the moon, and over billions of years caused that side to always face earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but she may learn to use keyboard shortcuts if they're more clearly presented to her. I'm not saying it's going to happen, I'm just saying it's more likely to happen if she has a graphical interface at her fingertips clearly showing her what keys do what, mapped in relation to the keys, not the functions themselves (as you would see in the context menus).
If you read the last sentence of my post, you'd see that we essentially agree:
It's naive to think that they will be able to replace all or even many keyboards in the short term with such new(not even invented yet) technology. It will take years, maybe even a decade or more to perfect the technologies necessary to mass-produce an economical OLED keyboard.
In the short-term, when these things are prohibitively expensive, they will probably be targeted to niche markets, like:
andIt'll appeal to the same people who go for neon lights inside their half-transparent cases and stickers on everything - the Alienware crowd - except that this thing actually has a use.
Also, think of the two finger typists. There are still plenty of them out there. Those type of people would probably benefit greatly from such a device.
I could see this getting big once our injet capabilities have improved, and we can cheaply print OLEDs (and human organs someday :) )
I guess you could argue that it's a record of the bits output by the synthesizer, but that's could be considered a stretch.
If your problem is with the legality of the broadcaster (web host in this case), replace 'napster' with 'radio' in my argument. Should I be allowed to record my local radio/tv station, cut it up into individual songs/shows, and post them in a directory online so people have a public record of the information that was publicly broadcast? The music/show was broadcast legally, with permission of the copyright holder, but redistribution is illegal because it is copyrighted.
I agree with you that these guys are slimeballs trying to cover their asses with a technicality, but legalizing unlicensed redistribution of copyrighted material kinda defeats the purpose of copyrights, no?
Do the ends(nailing a liar) justify the means(circumventing copyright law)?
Using the same logic as you used above, one could argue that Napster is a distributed directory of music, cached as they were ripped by users. Facts
Thus protected by copyright claims.
I'd love to see someone try that defense in court.
I agree with the sibling poster who said that it would be comparable to Yahoo's directory. It can post a pointer, but not the actual content.
Yes, but the way copyright law works. You must be given explicit permission by a copyright holder, not 'not be forbidden to use the work'.
It's a whitelist system, not a blacklist system.
As much as I wish you were right, 'Fair Use' doesn't include redistribution. If it did, then we wouldn't be having this whole napster/grokster debacle.
If a drug is dangerous to other people (not just the person taking it), like crack cocaine, that's one thing. If a drug has potential to be beneficial to many people, and the only reason they can't use it is because no one has spent billions of dollars on medical trials, I believe those people should be allowed to put their own lives at risk by trying experimental medications.
For example, a biotech firm has developed a gene therapy that uses the p53 (apoptosis) gene to kill cancerous cells. The treatment has been shown to be extremely effective and is on the fasttrack approval process, with the only known side effect being pain at the site of injection. The drug cannot be released until the trials are done. The one that bugs me is a trial in which the treatment was given to several terminal patients. Most of them showed significant improvement, yet the study isn't complete until a 75% (IIRC) of them die because they 'need' to know exactly how much the lifespans were extended. Why the hell are they postponing the release of this treatment over something stupid like that? This could be helping so many people, and yet it's being held back. The treatment is actually being delayed because it's so effective. BS
Why not pictures and interviews? Or a 90+ minute documentary? Or an under-oath sworn statement from a rich entrepreneur saying that he wouldn't have wasted oodles of money on something that was gonna be ripped off the moment he finished it?
Pick any major pharmaceutical that took >10 years to develop. I'm i'm Merck or GSK or Pfizer, why the hell would I spend tens of billions of dollars researching and getting FDA approval for a drug that my competitors can produce from the moment it's FDA approved?
So ignorance is now a solid defense (or rather, offense in this situation)? What ever happened to being responsible for your own property?
The owner left the device configured to ADVERTISE ITS PRESENCE and to negotiate and accept anonymous connections. This was not something beyond the owner's control. The manual to the router tells you how to configure it.
As was mentioned earlier. The logic that would lead to banning connections to wide open wireless access points could easily lead to banning connections to ANY computer network without the owner's prior consent. The words you are reading right now were sent to you by a server whose owner did not give you prior consent before connecting to it. Since you're such an upstanding citizen, are you going to turn yourself into the authorities for having committed a third degree felony?
Do you believe people walking on someone's lawn without prior consent should be a third degree felony?What a horrible analogy. Lawns don't advertise their presence and negotiate/welcome 'connections' from strangers on the street. Connecting to a router requires the router's approval, PERIOD. The router's approval requires the user to leave it configured to do so and therefore the user's permission. Walking on a lawn requires no such thing.
In much the same way as you can't waive negligence and ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, not reading the manual doesn't get you off the hook, or make someone else culpable, unless our justice system is seriously screwed up.
Don't forget about the child pornographers!
The inner planets are rocky, while the outer planets are gaseous(lots of hydrogen). Why? Heavy atoms are made in the sun's fusion reactions. They occasionally get shot out of the sun, and heavy particles are more affected by gravity than light ones, so they're likelier to find a body to collide with sooner. In fact, probably everything heavier than hydrogen was made in our sun(or some other star).
Moons can be made several ways. One of them is the way you described. Is it that hard to believe? Several planets have rings of dust and rocks. If you wait long enough, some of those particles will stick together.
Slightly off-topic: Also, the mass of the moon isn't evenly distributed. There is a dense area inside it that's off-center that was attracted to earth moreso than the rest of the moon, and over billions of years caused that side to always face earth.