In the past it could be measured by the sales of blank cassettes (Come on, what were people supposed to use them for?!) But back then, you at least had to know someone who owned the original if you didn't want crappy sound. There was a physical barrier limiting people to how far piracy can go.
Try to think out of the box. Just cause you got by without a cellphone when you were 8 (it wouldn't have been an option for you anyway) doesn't mean that kids change along with technology. "What does the man on the street need a cellphone for?" might have been a question asked 20 years ago when brokers used them.
Communication is of increasing importance to newer generations, and if you refuse to accept it you'll just become an old fogey.
I don't think it's necessary to worry about trademarks.
Micky Mouse is probably registered as some kind a trademark and will remain to be one for many years to come no doubt. But a trademark is a very limited kind of protection, which won't prevent any of the material or characters being redistributed or recreated.
A trademark is basically something like "Disney", where people can recognize that it is being distributed by a certain organization. Likewise, "Micky Mouse toys" can for example be used to distinguish itself from other brands.
But it can't stop me from distributing "The Disney Classic Micky Mouse", as long as I don't make it seem like it's actually Disney who's distributing it. Nor will it stop me from making "Mickey Mouse Porn XXX", as long as I don't violate any trademarks, and make it evident that I have nothing to do with Disney.
Trademarks are granted carefully, because there are so many organizations out there. For this reason, there are many Organizations who use the same trademarks, but have a different field of business, and thus do not cause any confusion.
I think it will be more like this: Circumventing the copy protection will still be illegal, but by using DRM the company is breaching the license agreement for the code. Thus, they must either scrap the DRM or else stop using GPL'd code.
It depends on what it's designed for I guess. Apparently MPEG2 performs better at high bitrates than MPEG4 for example, which is why they used it for Bluray (or so they say).
If you go to that length, it's easier to just rip the file from a CD in mp3 format, which will be more popular in P2P networks anyway. The whole Idea behind this is that DRM isn't really stopping pirates from doing anything, and just gets into users way. What they're interested in is whether users will have thousands of tracks from thousands of iTunes accounts on his hard drive, and if it could be concluded that easy access to good, properly labelled tracks actually encourages piracy.
If people in third world countries were allowed to produce just 10% of what the average American produces, they would probably never have to worry about it in their lifetime.
The US is the biggest polluter in the world, and seriously needs drastic reforming. If everyone else can manage it, so can the US.
And where do you believe terrestrial radiation comes from? The sun. What is being measured and observed is terrestrial re-radiation, with solar radiation as a control and baseline.
And the reason the re-radiation is interesting is because it's good to know what's going out, we already know whats coming in.
Now there's a "red herring" argument! I believe that quote refers to dating.
It can refer to many things, but you have only heard it in that context it seams. The point is that what used to seem mysterious, overpowering and vast, has revealed itself to be quite weak and instable if left to industry's pleasure. It's the same reasoning that you used for your argument. But it turns out, we humans can do quite a bit of damage.
Ok, you got me there. Shot my mouth off with out doing the research. Mea Culpa.
One reference that I found in few seconds, but the idea is so ludicrous that it's hardly mentioned except by denial folks.
And doesn't the burning of any hydrocarbon based fuel release carbon?
Yes, but the net output for Biofuel is zero. Every molecule burned was transformed out of atmospheric CO2 by a plant, using an unbelievable magic known as "photosynthesis". That way, no damage is done.
You want to compare it to what is spent on oil annually? Go ahead.
Not to mention that there is some question as to the actual origin of "fossil fuels". They may be naturally occuring.
Whether or not you buy into abiogenic theories of oil (Coal mines have been found with fossilised remains of actual forest life, so there isn't much question there) the fact remains that they're there, we're burning them, and they're not coming back, which means you're fucking up the carbon cycle. (I presume you meant abiogenic theories. "naturally occuring" is a strange way of describing it)
Oh no, you don't say! Spending money or investing in something costs money? Oh shits! And more money on energy means less elsewhere? God, if I'd have known this before!
Latest news from the White House: all government spending will be abolished. All taxes are no more. Screw the military and screw the agricultural policy. If we, gasp, give more money to people, they might spend it on things, and then they can save and then....
If the best the Department of Energy can do is tell us that Energy prices affect the economy, and then decides to go into every detail of economic fluctuations, you have to seriously question their motives. Like when Bush's Environment Secretary said something like "Jobs are more important than the environment". Ignoring the dumb wit analysis, what happened to discussion and good old balance of power?
Wow, either this is just bait, or you are an astoundingly ignorant being.
First off, if you'd have read the article, you'd have noticed this is about observing terrestrial radiation, not solar radiation.
The overwhelming arrogance of some people to believe that mere humans and our assorted activities have a major impact on the (average) mass of the atmosphere of about 5,000 trillion metric tons, is astounding in the extreme.
A single volcanic eruption spews more "greenhouse gases" and particulates into the atmosphere than all human activity for a decade.
Now that's just one of the classic bullshit arguments invented by someone who had no Idea. I don't blame you, many have fallen for it, but it's just plain wrong.
The most logical and common sense reason for climate temperature variations is that great, bright, flaming ball of fusing hydrogen in the sky. Which, by the way, is known to be variable in its output.
There's something called the "solar constant", and there's a reason why it has that second word. That is because it is pretty much constant, with minimal periodic variations (under 0.1%). Not saying that it can't have any effect, but comparing it to burning up vast amounts of Carbon which have amassed over hundreds of millions of years, I'd say we've known where to start looking.
Yeah, cause we know that reducing our energy consumption and CO2 emissions so fundamentally conflicts with the present and future welfare of poor and underdeveloped nations, and that you can't possibly protect the environment and reform the tax system at the same time. It's just too much.
Oh, and if you really want to reduce CO2 emissions, plant a few trees or flowers, they love the stuff.
Even better: Use Biofuel for your energy needs. Maybe you shuold try it too.
Except when you stumble upon something that doesn't work so easily, and casual users are told to change some text in some config files and type things that they don't know what the meaning is in the console.
Let's face it, Linux systems at least have a problem with people who are used to installing things on Windows, otherwise there wouldn't be all the fuss.
The thing is, it's probably true. NASA is pretty beat about good ideas of what to do when they send people up there that a) are remotely interesting and b) don't cost much.
So true. Sending up balls of meat to do something a robot could do cheaper and easier seems more and more pointless. At most it would require the same amount of funding as a human mission, and the experience gathered would be immensely useful for further missions. Let's face it, humans are going nowhere far soon, and why should Billions be spent on giving a few dozen astronauts a field trip?
We've had this baby ready to launch for years, but for some mysterious reason NASA is having trouble doing anything with climate research. All they need to do is strap it on a DELTA IV rocket.
Apart from the fact that what you say in your sarcasm is 100% correct, it is interesting to note that high-rise buildings have only otherwise been known to collapse because of earthquakes.
They should have thoroughly analysed the effects of different parameters, looked at the maximum conceivable damage, the minimal damage, and just how likely any of the possibilities were. It doesn't take any wild conspiracies to be able to point out that the investigation was shoddy, and putting the genuine questions in the same pot as crackpots who say it was Jews with nukes is is an insult to humanity.
Re:Pop and junk food or ... human fat !
on
Driving on Starch
·
· Score: 1
I calculated how many Twinkies it would take to run a car once, to discredit an argument of how humans produce more CO2 than cars. It turns out that you'd have to eat about 7 Twinkies per mile to keep up with the energy-thirst of a 35 mpg car.
That's the sad fact. Even the more justifiable "genuine" patents are nothing more than a very simple implementation of existing technology, and the only reason it hasn't been already used is because there hasn't been any need so far.
The patent is over a surface treatment. Although the original Bluray specifications may be older, a lot of recent R&D went into the actual physical properties of the disc, to maximise readability etc. (if you remember, the early Bluray prototypes where encased in hard shell like with floppys)
Slashdot Mirror
Your link automatically redirects. What you need to to is just click "print" underneath the "Options" Column beneath the article.
In the past it could be measured by the sales of blank cassettes (Come on, what were people supposed to use them for?!)
But back then, you at least had to know someone who owned the original if you didn't want crappy sound. There was a physical barrier limiting people to how far piracy can go.
Try to think out of the box. Just cause you got by without a cellphone when you were 8 (it wouldn't have been an option for you anyway) doesn't mean that kids change along with technology. "What does the man on the street need a cellphone for?" might have been a question asked 20 years ago when brokers used them.
Communication is of increasing importance to newer generations, and if you refuse to accept it you'll just become an old fogey.
Funny you should say, cause I heard (maybe just a rumour) that they're popular in the Iraq war cause Soldiers don't have to account for spent Ammo.
I don't think it's necessary to worry about trademarks.
Micky Mouse is probably registered as some kind a trademark and will remain to be one for many years to come no doubt. But a trademark is a very limited kind of protection, which won't prevent any of the material or characters being redistributed or recreated.
A trademark is basically something like "Disney", where people can recognize that it is being distributed by a certain organization. Likewise, "Micky Mouse toys" can for example be used to distinguish itself from other brands.
But it can't stop me from distributing "The Disney Classic Micky Mouse", as long as I don't make it seem like it's actually Disney who's distributing it.
Nor will it stop me from making "Mickey Mouse Porn XXX", as long as I don't violate any trademarks, and make it evident that I have nothing to do with Disney.
Trademarks are granted carefully, because there are so many organizations out there. For this reason, there are many Organizations who use the same trademarks, but have a different field of business, and thus do not cause any confusion.
It's hard to make a point for distributing source code for an article.
I think it will be more like this: Circumventing the copy protection will still be illegal, but by using DRM the company is breaching the license agreement for the code. Thus, they must either scrap the DRM or else stop using GPL'd code.
Dr. Octopus attempts to blow up Manhatten. Nanoglue Man saves the day!
It depends on what it's designed for I guess. Apparently MPEG2 performs better at high bitrates than MPEG4 for example, which is why they used it for Bluray (or so they say).
If you go to that length, it's easier to just rip the file from a CD in mp3 format, which will be more popular in P2P networks anyway.
The whole Idea behind this is that DRM isn't really stopping pirates from doing anything, and just gets into users way.
What they're interested in is whether users will have thousands of tracks from thousands of iTunes accounts on his hard drive, and if it could be concluded that easy access to good, properly labelled tracks actually encourages piracy.
The difference is I've never heard of anyone been told to do so in Windows.
If people in third world countries were allowed to produce just 10% of what the average American produces, they would probably never have to worry about it in their lifetime.
The US is the biggest polluter in the world, and seriously needs drastic reforming. If everyone else can manage it, so can the US.
And the reason the re-radiation is interesting is because it's good to know what's going out, we already know whats coming in.
It can refer to many things, but you have only heard it in that context it seams. The point is that what used to seem mysterious, overpowering and vast, has revealed itself to be quite weak and instable if left to industry's pleasure.
It's the same reasoning that you used for your argument. But it turns out, we humans can do quite a bit of damage.
One reference that I found in few seconds, but the idea is so ludicrous that it's hardly mentioned except by denial folks.
Yes, but the net output for Biofuel is zero. Every molecule burned was transformed out of atmospheric CO2 by a plant, using an unbelievable magic known as "photosynthesis". That way, no damage is done.
You want to compare it to what is spent on oil annually? Go ahead.
Whether or not you buy into abiogenic theories of oil (Coal mines have been found with fossilised remains of actual forest life, so there isn't much question there) the fact remains that they're there, we're burning them, and they're not coming back, which means you're fucking up the carbon cycle.
(I presume you meant abiogenic theories. "naturally occuring" is a strange way of describing it)
Oh no, you don't say! Spending money or investing in something costs money? Oh shits! And more money on energy means less elsewhere? God, if I'd have known this before!
Latest news from the White House: all government spending will be abolished. All taxes are no more. Screw the military and screw the agricultural policy.
If we, gasp, give more money to people, they might spend it on things, and then they can save and then....
If the best the Department of Energy can do is tell us that Energy prices affect the economy, and then decides to go into every detail of economic fluctuations, you have to seriously question their motives.
Like when Bush's Environment Secretary said something like "Jobs are more important than the environment". Ignoring the dumb wit analysis, what happened to discussion and good old balance of power?
First off, if you'd have read the article, you'd have noticed this is about observing terrestrial radiation, not solar radiation.
There's an old saying that goes: "There's plenty more fish in the sea"
Now that's just one of the classic bullshit arguments invented by someone who had no Idea. I don't blame you, many have fallen for it, but it's just plain wrong.
There's something called the "solar constant", and there's a reason why it has that second word. That is because it is pretty much constant, with minimal periodic variations (under 0.1%). Not saying that it can't have any effect, but comparing it to burning up vast amounts of Carbon which have amassed over hundreds of millions of years, I'd say we've known where to start looking.
Yeah, cause we know that reducing our energy consumption and CO2 emissions so fundamentally conflicts with the present and future welfare of poor and underdeveloped nations, and that you can't possibly protect the environment and reform the tax system at the same time. It's just too much.
Even better: Use Biofuel for your energy needs. Maybe you shuold try it too.
Except when you stumble upon something that doesn't work so easily, and casual users are told to change some text in some config files and type things that they don't know what the meaning is in the console.
Let's face it, Linux systems at least have a problem with people who are used to installing things on Windows, otherwise there wouldn't be all the fuss.
I suppose you're from Soviet Russia, and are trying to cover up the nuclear weapons testing.
You won't get me with your water flouridation, I drink rain. Liberty rulez!
The thing is, it's probably true. NASA is pretty beat about good ideas of what to do when they send people up there that a) are remotely interesting and b) don't cost much.
So true. Sending up balls of meat to do something a robot could do cheaper and easier seems more and more pointless. At most it would require the same amount of funding as a human mission, and the experience gathered would be immensely useful for further missions. Let's face it, humans are going nowhere far soon, and why should Billions be spent on giving a few dozen astronauts a field trip?
We've had this baby ready to launch for years, but for some mysterious reason NASA is having trouble doing anything with climate research. All they need to do is strap it on a DELTA IV rocket.
Apart from the fact that what you say in your sarcasm is 100% correct, it is interesting to note that high-rise buildings have only otherwise been known to collapse because of earthquakes.
They should have thoroughly analysed the effects of different parameters, looked at the maximum conceivable damage, the minimal damage, and just how likely any of the possibilities were. It doesn't take any wild conspiracies to be able to point out that the investigation was shoddy, and putting the genuine questions in the same pot as crackpots who say it was Jews with nukes is is an insult to humanity.
I calculated how many Twinkies it would take to run a car once, to discredit an argument of how humans produce more CO2 than cars. It turns out that you'd have to eat about 7 Twinkies per mile to keep up with the energy-thirst of a 35 mpg car.
That's the sad fact. Even the more justifiable "genuine" patents are nothing more than a very simple implementation of existing technology, and the only reason it hasn't been already used is because there hasn't been any need so far.
The patent is over a surface treatment. Although the original Bluray specifications may be older, a lot of recent R&D went into the actual physical properties of the disc, to maximise readability etc. (if you remember, the early Bluray prototypes where encased in hard shell like with floppys)