Why not? We had Windows 95 to ME for generations while Amiga was actually stable and had real pre-emptive multitasking. I had no idea a computer could be that wonderful until I saw my friends Amiga in action. Why didn't people buy it sooner? The tech was literally years ahead. in the sense that it was made before thinking was invented
Linksys just bought KISS (www.kiss-technology.com), which makes awesome PVRs and networked media players running on GPL code. Hope they don't screw it up.
Ah, the usual excuse.,"There's more of us, so we can steal all we like from the minority, and it's right". The basic premise of bolsheviks and communists. Where would socialism be today, were it not for the people thinking along these lines? Ummm, I think you misspelled "democracy".
Watermarking is indeed altering the data. Altering, in turn, is the opposite of copying. So we have watermarking = altering != copying. Therefore, whatever sequence of bits I end up with after putting the data through the watermarking device is not a copy of said data. Therefore there is no possibility of infringement. Q.E.D.
Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.
Maybe a leisurely aircruise to Vegas then. Just imagine all that surface area on a Zeppelin!
It is entirely possible for ionic transfer to induce mechanical transformation within nerve cells, and in turn, for such movement to trigger ionic transfer. Remember these?
It seems that we have discussed this kind of things so many times. Hollywood are not meant to learn about real world. It is about entertainment. Agree. On the other hand, I don't see anyone complaining about Hollywood films breaking the laws of physiques. Just look at Jessica Biel (sorry, Natalie Portman is all/.-memed out, and physique is the new hot grits thanks to Borat).
This goes beyond idiocy... Well, duh. What did you expect when you're dealing with an issue involving the Trifecta of Evil (TM): FDA (big-pharma-controlled instrument of government coercion), AMA (doctors' cartel), and the WHO (alarmist "world-improvers"--on your dime naturally).
Makes sense to me, what were we getting all worked up about?
JON I'm with you here. All these people getting all het up about the technicalities of this thing and missing the big picture: taxation is theft.
Re:Call me a stickler for language...
on
DRM Causes Piracy
·
· Score: 1
Obviously solving this problem is a toughy. We could kill copyright infringement as a crime, much as we repealed Prohibition, but that could create other problems, such as disincentivizing creativty, or encouraging tighter DRM, as creators deal with the ramifications. I offer no solutions, but this is the problem as I see it. Copyright has always been a rent-seeeking measure, and the argument about "incentivizing creativity" has always struck me as a fig leaf that publishers and authors resort to in order to try to hide the shameful greed implicit in lobbying for a state-enforced monopoly in their favor. It is not at all clear that copyright and "intellectual property" in general promotes creativity. Absolute creativity (bringing something into existence from nothingness) seems to be quite rare--I think the last documented instance was an intense 6-day period some 6000 years ago:-)
On the other hand, the vast majority of "works" considered as creative nowadays are inspired, derived or modeled upon prior "works". It can plausibly be argued (if you put any stock in utilitarian arguments) that the non-restriction of access to "creative works" will lead to an veritable explosion of further creative works. The only principled (as opposed to utilitarian) stance on this issue is that intellectual-property restrictions are violations of individuals' rights with regard to their own physical property or even their own body (see Electric Slide).
My hypothesis is that people who would have scored, say, 1 sigma below 100 are much less likely than those at +1 sigma to be in an environment where they would be tested.
Tony Montana (heavy Cuban accent): This country first you gotta get the money, then you get the power and when you got the power, then you get the women.
Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones: You see, sir, the SAPS software was originally written to look for seismic events. I think when it gets confused, it kind of runs home to Mama.
Commander Bart Mancuso: I'm not following you, Jonesy.
Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones:Sir, I'm sorry. Listen to it at 100 times speed. Now, that's got to be manmade, Captain.
Insightful. But you just begged the question of the true nature of downloading. You focused on the meaninglessness of "returning downloaded music" but the corollary of that observation is that the delivery of downloaded music is also meaningless. To deliver something usually means to give a thing and no longer possess it in exchange for a consideration (in the case of a sale).
Since we're playing "ideal world". Lets make that a little more elegant.
1. Anyone can say and do whatever they want.
2. Everyone shall be accountable for any harm they cause whether through words or actions (Restitution in case of fraud on the part of the fraudulent seller; disappointment on the part of a stupid buyer).
That of cource doesn't mean that persons or melodies do not exist, or that either has some metaphysical component. Only that biochemistry is not a good way to fully understand persons, and that vibrations are not a good way to fully understand songs.
I think I get what you're driving at. So if telekinesis is defined as an "ability of the mind to influence matter or energy without the use of any currently known type of physical means". It seems that it is a meaningless concept.
By the same token however, the notion of "evolution", as described, for instance, in the corresponding wikipedia article, i.e.:
In biology, evolution is the change from generation to generation in how common various inherited characteristics are within a population. These characteristics are encoded on genes. Competing variants of genes, known as alleles, cause different characteristics to become more common in different organisms, resulting in variation between organisms with different alleles. As these differences in and between populations accumulate, new species can evolve from prior ones.
is equally meaningless, as genomics does not seem to be a good way to fully understand species, as the best you can do it draw a circle around a bunch of individuals and say, "that's a species". Talk about mixing models!
Jahn points the finger at detractors as well: 'If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will.'" This is the singular piece of research that he has produced. And I agree with him, I don't believe them!
-nB
But he did point his finger. That requires a coordinated firing of neurons. How did he cause these neurons to fire in such a manner? Mind over matter? Or was it just reflex?
Now, do you think that everyone on the planet should be required to do things your way, or should they be allowed to make poor decisions/laws?
If I believe people should do things a certain way then I believe they should do them that way--that is a tautology. But it is quite a different thing to jump to the conclusion that I believe they should be required (i.e. coerced) to do things that way. You should patent your method for constructing a straw-man (just add "required"!).
Oh, and lumping together decisions and laws... why you seem to be a logical-fallacy-generating prodigy!
Decisions can only be made by individuals, there are only individual decisions (OK, if ALL the individuals in a group unanimously and voluntarily decided to act a certain way, I'll let that pass as a group decision). Laws on the other hand... well you know the saying about making sausages.
A sheep opting for alfalfa for dinner is a decision. The outcome of a sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for dinner is a law.
Slashdot Mirror
in the sense that it was made before thinking was invented
How much more green could this be? The answer is none: none more green.
Linksys just bought KISS (www.kiss-technology.com), which makes awesome PVRs and networked media players running on GPL code. Hope they don't screw it up.
Sorry, Good Start (TM) is already taken. That's what you call 5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
Ah, the usual excuse.
Watermarking is indeed altering the data. Altering, in turn, is the opposite of copying. So we have watermarking = altering != copying. Therefore, whatever sequence of bits I end up with after putting the data through the watermarking device is not a copy of said data. Therefore there is no possibility of infringement. Q.E.D.
If you actually go to court, certain... uhm ... compromising facts may come to light.
Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.
Maybe a leisurely aircruise to Vegas then. Just imagine all that surface area on a Zeppelin!Lamest. Car Analogy. Ever. (on /. no less)
see Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right
It is entirely possible for ionic transfer to induce mechanical transformation within nerve cells, and in turn, for such movement to trigger ionic transfer. Remember these?
JON I'm with you here. All these people getting all het up about the technicalities of this thing and missing the big picture: taxation is theft.
On the other hand, the vast majority of "works" considered as creative nowadays are inspired, derived or modeled upon prior "works". It can plausibly be argued (if you put any stock in utilitarian arguments) that the non-restriction of access to "creative works" will lead to an veritable explosion of further creative works. The only principled (as opposed to utilitarian) stance on this issue is that intellectual-property restrictions are violations of individuals' rights with regard to their own physical property or even their own body (see Electric Slide).
My hypothesis is that people who would have scored, say, 1 sigma below 100 are much less likely than those at +1 sigma to be in an environment where they would be tested.
Tony Montana (heavy Cuban accent): This country first you gotta get the money, then you get the power and when you got the power, then you get the women.
Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones: You see, sir, the SAPS software was originally written to look for seismic events. I think when it gets confused, it kind of runs home to Mama.
Commander Bart Mancuso: I'm not following you, Jonesy.
Sonarman 2nd Class Ronald Jones:Sir, I'm sorry. Listen to it at 100 times speed. Now, that's got to be manmade, Captain.
Insightful. But you just begged the question of the true nature of downloading. You focused on the meaninglessness of "returning downloaded music" but the corollary of that observation is that the delivery of downloaded music is also meaningless. To deliver something usually means to give a thing and no longer possess it in exchange for a consideration (in the case of a sale).
Since we're playing "ideal world". Lets make that a little more elegant.
1. Anyone can say and do whatever they want.
2. Everyone shall be accountable for any harm they cause whether through words or actions (Restitution in case of fraud on the part of the fraudulent seller; disappointment on the part of a stupid buyer).
That of cource doesn't mean that persons or melodies do not exist, or that either has some metaphysical component. Only that biochemistry is not a good way to fully understand persons, and that vibrations are not a good way to fully understand songs.
I think I get what you're driving at. So if telekinesis is defined as an "ability of the mind to influence matter or energy without the use of any currently known type of physical means". It seems that it is a meaningless concept.
By the same token however, the notion of "evolution", as described, for instance, in the corresponding wikipedia article, i.e.:
In biology, evolution is the change from generation to generation in how common various inherited characteristics are within a population. These characteristics are encoded on genes. Competing variants of genes, known as alleles, cause different characteristics to become more common in different organisms, resulting in variation between organisms with different alleles. As these differences in and between populations accumulate, new species can evolve from prior ones.
is equally meaningless, as genomics does not seem to be a good way to fully understand species, as the best you can do it draw a circle around a bunch of individuals and say, "that's a species". Talk about mixing models!
-nB
But he did point his finger. That requires a coordinated firing of neurons. How did he cause these neurons to fire in such a manner? Mind over matter? Or was it just reflex?
Now, do you think that everyone on the planet should be required to do things your way, or should they be allowed to make poor decisions/laws?
If I believe people should do things a certain way then I believe they should do them that way--that is a tautology. But it is quite a different thing to jump to the conclusion that I believe they should be required (i.e. coerced) to do things that way. You should patent your method for constructing a straw-man (just add "required"!).
Oh, and lumping together decisions and laws... why you seem to be a logical-fallacy-generating prodigy!
Decisions can only be made by individuals, there are only individual decisions (OK, if ALL the individuals in a group unanimously and voluntarily decided to act a certain way, I'll let that pass as a group decision). Laws on the other hand... well you know the saying about making sausages.
A sheep opting for alfalfa for dinner is a decision. The outcome of a sheep and two wolves voting on what to have for dinner is a law.