In a correctly done punch you will start the movement at your feet and accelerate your hips/body as well as your fist toward the target. This means that instead of you being moved backwards by the impact, the impact will stop (some of) your forward movement. Unless you're still pushing forward after the moment of impact, regardless of where the power originates, this should be true. Putting the rest of the body into a punch merely makes it stronger. But it isn't inconceivable for a punch originating from just the shoulder or even the elbow to do a lot of damage. Not as much as if the punch came from the body and legs, but that's besides the point.
On the other hand, if the object receiving the punch doesn't give way, you will share the force of the punch and end up hurting yourself. That's assuming you don't hurt yourself on making contact in the first place.
Distant explosions has appeared to improve lately. Sounds do reach the camera realistically. Lightning is another story though...there are still movies that can't seem to get that right.
The kicks in kung fu movies are possible, though not likely. The body's isn't static; training can condition a body to not break down upon releasing that amount of power, not to mention enable the body to exert that kind of force in the first place. That having been said, there are numerous occasions when an untrained or inexperienced person will try to kick someone and end up flying backwards instead.
Oh, and on top of what you said about slow motion, audio for many slow motions scenes do drop in pitch. Or they're silent. Which is also possible, because from a mental perspective, if you're actually experiencing something in slow motion (very possible), you're not likely to be registering audio at all.
YT videos are usually of poor quality. There are numerous ways youtube can actually generate a profit with this one little fact. Off the top of my head:
1) Offer higher-quality video services to paying viewers. 2) Offer higher-quality video services to paying uploaders. 3) Offer higher-quality video services on a per-video basis to uploaders.
Google is primarily a search company who makes money on advertisements based on search. Text ads based on video content based on description and tags is a start, but tagging has to be much better before this produces useful ads. Search also needs to be better, with more options and filters and such.
But as I've said before, I'm of the opinion that youtube should license their video generating software out to big media with the condition that videos can be found through youtube's search/browse system. Maybe even offer the option of caching too like what akami does. Put video ads before and after the hosted stuff, not on the non-hosted videos.
On the contrary. In Chinese mythology, it is possible for a human to pass on and become a diety, as opposed to becoming reincarnated. Such instances are rare and reserved for the very exceptional of people, but it is common for family members to believe that their deceased loved one has become a diety whom might watch over the rest of the family.
As such, there are also myths about animals who've managed to live beyond their natural lifespan and whom have gathered power enough to rival and surpass numerous dieties. So yes, even animals can be diefied, albeit the more appropriate term would be demonized.
So absolute agnosticism isn't unattainable, merely not compatible with Abrahamic religions, where there is and can only be one diety.
A bit of strategic nudging from the RIAA here and there with their lawyers, and we might just see many of the large commercial audio tools (rippers and players) entirely drop non-drm format support in an upcoming version. iTMS for example, might entirely drop their mp3 encoding support.
Of course, in reality, mp3's won't be going anywhere, patent violation or not; it's far too established. We'll see wma's more often, but private music collections will still be mp3.
The only difference is that the portable mp3 market (heck, the mp3 device market in general) was very, very young when the iPod first came out. The mobile phone market is much more mature. It's young compared to say, the hardwood furniture market, but the first mobile phones came out not long after the same time IBM made their PC intro--smartphones specifically since the Newton. Apple's trying to break into an established market with something that is inferior in some instances to existing products at lower price points.
That, and it took 3 generations for the iPod to catch on. I'd imagine it'll take at least until gen 2 before the iPhone begins to gain in popularity.
Not everyone wants fame and glory. Some people are content to live their lives out simply and in relative obscurity, doing menial jobs, without the headache of building and maintaining a reputation, only assisting when asked but rarely otherwise.
Bruce Lee once touched hands with a waiter at a restaurant (friendly, I suppose, though I doubt anyone will ever know for sure). Afterwards, he lamented that there are many unknown kung fu masters out there waiting on tables.
that could be why we have 3000 year old scrolls but stacked paper books don't last nearly as long. 3000 years ago, scrolls were made from hides and skins, specially cured. Paper's a more recent invention. Still, paper lasts quite a long time, even under poor storage conditions--several hundred years at the least. Books, on the other hand, are bound, and the binding makes not the individual pages but the book as a whole, more susceptible to wear.
I'm curious if this new paper can be copied or scanned without damage. Scanning and copying merely uses a very bright light to separate the dark from the light patches. A sensor takes in this difference and produces results. If the bright light doesn't display at a wavelength to which the paper will react, then it shouldn't matter. It's like asking whether you can photocopy a b&w photograph or your hand, for that matter...
Big content producers are going to want to retain control over their own content, obviously. And it's so easy to do so with the internet. You don't need youtube if you can develop your own video site with flash player and all in six months.
What youtube should do is offer to license its software or host the content, and charge for licensing and/or hosting. It can slap ads on those videos that aren't paying for either service, but not for their paying customers. Licensing their software should also include the stipulation that youtube can link to their content or content page via search results.
Otherwise, youtube would only be good for homemade videos. Which is a large enough market in and of itself. But don't expect big content producers with their own means of putting their videos on the web to sign on.
I merely use code as an example to illustrate why the question of patents is not so cut and dry. There are always two sides of the coin. You can't just say patents are evil and do away with them entirely. It's finding that right balance between the interests of the inventor and the interests of the public. That's why patents are such a sticky subject matter. The line needs to be carefully but firmly drawn. And to do that, all perspectives have to be examined and taken into consideration, not just the mainstream ones or the ones that are most agreeable. The more ridiculous ones can be dismissed after consideration, but not until then.
That having been said, for the record, I am personally against software patents, for a variety of reasons. Ideas should not be patentable. Physical implementations, tangible objects, certainly, but not the idea itself. The same thing applies to genetic code, organisms, drugs, etc. The pill should be patentable (assuming it fits the other criteria for patentability), but the formula should not. Allowing method patents would be like patenting the idea of coating a gel cap to allow for easier consumption, and that should definitely be disallowed.
Something that is meaningful has value over time. It ages well. Acquiring a skill or some newfound experience, for example, would be meaningful. Something as simple as pottery, or carpentry, painting or even playing an instrument, would be meaningful. As is learning a new programming language. Using the skill in a meaningful manner would be even better. Making a table, a set of vases, for example. Or a new firefox extension, for that matter.
Television and games are largely meaningless pursuits because they do not contribute (good or bad) to your life. You're watching or playing someone else's (fictional) life, exchanging the time you have to live and do something with your own life for the opportunity to do something for a fantasy world that does not have any bearing on this one, or in the case of video games, resets after completing it.
One can argue that you can gain experience from watching television that you might not have otherwise, or gain certain skills from playing video games. However, I don't believe these are very strong arguments. We know how well TV and movies reflect real life, so it is more likely to get false experiences from it than real experiences, and the reaction-time/reflex/visualization/whatever skill from video games both are merely a correlative relationship and not a casual relationship, and for skills that are causally related to playing video games, not everyone can use video games to develop them. In short, there are better ways to gain the same skills, that are far more meaningful. An example off the top of my head, some form of martial art or sport fighting can develop reaction time and motorary precision.
The lives of animals do have meaning. Everything they do, they do to continue the existence of their species, to propogate. Which doesn't seem very grand or amazing, but it is meaningful. On the other hand, that's what humans have been doing too. Medical and technological advances are for the purposes of propogation. From the acquisition of that knowledge and development of those skills, humans have become the most successful at this point in our planet's history. And in the end, that's really all that meaningfulness comes down to, even for us. Sure, rebuilding a '69 Chevy Impala engine doesn't appear to directly relate to this kind of success, but it does contribute to our success, indirectly. That's because the knowledge and experience gained from learning how to rebuild engines can be applied elsewhere, perhaps to eventually improve or even save lifes. And that means increasing our rate of success for the species as a whole.
Creating something requires money. Raw materials for production aside, R&D has expenses. It's not code, and even coding something requires time. If you can't make money to survive using that time spent writing that code, why write it in the first place. Yes, there is personal gratification or charity. But this comes only after you can meet the daily needs of food, clothing, and shelter.
And don't make the patent office earn their budget through the number patents they grant.
This is indeed ridiculous. But I do think compensation per review is a good incentive. Compensation, after all, makes for a speedier process. But while quantity increases, quality, however, suffers.
In truth, I don't think patent examiners should be determining the validity of patents at all. I think independent domain experts should be doing it. Categorize the patents my field of relevancy (patents should be able to fall into multiple categories). Having panels of a fixed number of experts in that category review incoming patents for obviousness, prior art, etc. would solve a multitude of problems. The rest of the experts in a particular category that are not part of the panel can rate the experts' reviews, and those with low scores would be kicked off the category or the system itself. Compensate the experts for each review, negative or positive.
Experts, of course, should have some sort of degree or certification, or should have proof of experience (like verifiable industry experience, etc.). And obviously, those who sneak through the cracks will be removed rather quickly if the body of legitmate experts in each category are sufficiently large.
And the moment you begin selling what it is you made, Walmart will purchase one and copy it, undercut your prices, selling at a loss until your company's flat broke and out of business, then raise the prices back to yours to make a profit again. Walmart hence makes the big bucks, while you go deep into debt.
Maybe because most people on/. have a better grasp of perl than English. Words in English might have an overall, general meaning, but many words are best used only in certain, specific contexts determined by the nuances in the definition of the word. Not everyone understands this, and ends up using the inappropriate word. Even though everyone pretty much understands the intention, as everyone knows the general meaning, the word is incorrectly used.
Admission is the (usually grudging but not necessarily) revocation of a previously explicit or implied assertion or denial (which are actually the same thing; denial is merely a negative assertion). If Ballmer never asserted or denied implicitly or explicitly a certain sales target for Vista, then there's no admission in a statement. As such, Ballmer was referencing assertions made by other people--namely, financial analysts.
That, or the bragging rights. Without copyright, anyone can claim to have written anything. Even the BSD license requires that BSD code remain under the BSD license (though that's about all the license specifies).
Violence is not necessarily a bad method of solving disputes. It is only when it gets out of control. Take the revolutionary war for example. And while it's easy for things to spiral out of control, that by no means makes a violent solution a poor one.
Case in point, if someone was making credible threates to rape your daughter (or sister, or wife, or whatever), would you wait for the police to arrest that person after the crime and let the courts handle it, or attempt to permanently disable and possibly kill that person before it happens? This is an extreme case which calls for an extreme solution. The part that is extreme isn't the suggestion of violence, but the ultimate goal of permanently disabling or killing a person. Perhaps the courts from the former possible solution will sentence the person to death or life in prison--equally as extreme but without the violence.
However, consider the following scenario: A thief grabs a woman's purse. You could wait for the police to apprehend the thief, but you instead run after the thief and tackle him, pinning him to the ground until police arrive. In certain juristictions, you could be charged with assault, and the thief possibly slapped on the hand and let go. GP's point suddenly becomes far more insightful.
The problem with endorsing violence comes when the level of response doesn't match the situation. However, this could be said of any punitive measure. What level of violence matches what type of conflict is no more subjective than current sentencing guidelines. That is, both are completely subjective (see the sentencing guidelines for hackers and copyright infringers as examples of this), and the only thing that separates the two is that one is codified and the other is not. The obvious solution would be to codify the acceptable levels of violence for various levels of conflict.
It is, however, a daunting task in that there is much to cover, but no more difficult than creating today's existing laws and guidelines. Which is to say, there will be errors intially, there will be loopholes, but the system will sort itself out eventually.
Iraq is a good example of how not controlling levels of violence would be detrimental. Imagine arming every Iraqi with AK-47's and a clip or two, and telling them they can use it if they're threatened or their homes are invaded. Make the thugs think twice before bursting through doors. Make them pay for their kidnappings and assassinations. Making gun ownership illegal works only if the supply can be limited. That this is not the case means with limits (legal, financial, or otherwise) on weapons, the ones who are eager and willing to use violence will have power over those who aren't. And that's what we're seeing in Iraq today.
Of course, the US soldiers there would probably be scared shitless if every Iraqi on the streets were armed to the teeth and capable of using those arms competently, so it'll never happen. But this, I believe, ties right back into GP's point.
If ever was there a comment more deserving of an insightful mod, I haven't seen it.
Reading up and down the topics, all I see are the same counter arguments: It's not Linux's fault for not having this feature; it's Microsoft's fault for being closed. It's the user's/organization's fault for not using a FOSS alternative instead.
This archetypical response from the Linux community and fanbase is exactly the issue parent addresses. And all parent gets in response is more of the same thing. So, I'm going to put it in a different way, far more bluntly, and hopefully, maybe I can across get the point parent makes.
Simply speaking, nobody in the corporate world cares about placing blame. Either something works, or something doesn't. If something doesn't work, it needs to be fixed or replaced. End of story. Of course, the guy who made it goes wrong is Nobody cares if there are alternatives that have the same features. Nobody cares who's fault it is that those alternatives don't work with the existing infrastructure. Nobody cares what workarounds there are. As someone managing a business, if my software can't work with a customer's data out of the box or with minimal configuration, then it's either time to change to something that can, or drop the customer, whichever one is cheaper. For big enough accounts, the return would dwarf the cost of buying new software. And since the established software set is sufficient, works with everyone else's data, and the competition has no new value to offer from a productivity standpoint, why even bother spending the money to switch in the first place?
And from a sales perspective, blaming the customer (a.k.a. the user), insulting the customer, or otherwise saying that the customer is somehow wrong is the quickest way to alienating the customer. Asserting intellectual superiority--or more accurately, domain knowledge superiority does not impress anyone.
This attitude of "our way or the highway" and "it's not our fault; why should we do anything about it" has got to go before Linux can even begin to see mainstream adoption. Or do people not want to see Linux topple the evil empire?
Yeah, I'll take the karma hit. It needs to be said though.
GP is right. This doesn't save the environment. It merely maintains it. Which is to say, while if the US switches completely over to ethanol or other biofuels (and there's as much a chance of this really happening as there is of the US switching over to metric completely as it is already), all it will do is slow down the increase in carbon gasses--significantly, mind you, but there's still an increase coming from other countries like *ahem* China *ahem*.
A negative return would be needed to actually save the our ecology from eventual collapse. And that means that alternative fuels should be either an intermediate solution--some kind of stepping stone, or it should be skipped over completely as we move to clean forms of energy production. While I think alternative fuels is good if we could use it to produce the devices for clean energy production (those solar panels require power to make, and it would be much more environmentally friendly if it were made with ethanol than petrol), I also think it's dangerous if we paused there, as people will stop seeing the massive environmental changes and think everything's ok again (and consequently forget about the second step of moving to clean energy sources) when in fact we've only slowed the acceleration.
On the other hand, shooting straight for 99% clean energy production would eliminate this possibility, even if in the short run, things won't seem to be getting any better and will actually get worse. That's the route that I'd prefer, as it seems like there's a huge ethanol backing in DC, largely because we grow so much corn a part of it has to be destroyed anyway or the already-low prices would plummet. Which means we'll almost definitely be stuck at that waypoint. Which also means we'd be prolonging (but lessening) our suffering towards eventual demise instead of outright healing the cause of our ailment.
I think most of the upgrading talk comes from the hardcore gamers. Games always push the envelope when it comes to hardware requirements, especially so because the hardware specs of a gamer's machine can be a moving target. There isn't much talk about having to upgrade Mac or Linux boxen because most people using those OS's don't game with them, or aren't interested in playing the newest games on the first day of release. They either game on a separate machine (which does require upgrading), or, they stick to one or two games (WoW) and play nothing else on their computer.
Eradication is a natural consequence of resource competition. The difference between other animals and humans/humanoids is that we are genetically coded to have a high ability to adapt. While most animals adapt on a timescale spanning multiple generations, we adapt to the changing environment within our lifetimes. Thus, we were able to out-adapt our competition, using up the resources they also need and thus eradicating them.
Subjugation was what created society in the first place. Domestication of plants is agriculture. It's a component of our adaptibility, that we can use other forms of life to further our own survival. And, we do it to other humans all the time. Civilization itself can be summarized as the subjugation of the masses by a few, albeit a little unfairly.
This whole concept of equality is a very new thing, and it's still being refined today.
Most likely, we wiped them out because they couldn't adapt to us as quickly as we could to them. Or, to put it another way, humans entered their environment, and they couldn't adapt to this change quickly enough. So they died and we survived. It's a cold point of view, but natural selection is a logical process, not an emotional one.
It's not really quite just that. The interstate system was created based upon a broad interpretation of the "commerce clause" of the constitution. That is, congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce or some stuff like that.
Driver's licenses and other forms of ID are state-issued. The transportation system within a state is largely governed by the state. Even interstates aren't controlled by the US government in this respect, though I do believe federal money is used to maintain those roads. The state specifies the speed limit, patrols it, etc. You don't see the FBI lying in wait behind a groove of trees, but you do see state troopers.
A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.
Anyway, true Republicans would be appalled at a national ID. States rights, remember? It's probably why Maine passed this resolution practically unanimously. Democrats are the ones who should be endorsing it.
Hashes are more important than ciphers. But hashes can only be secured so far. Beyond that, the return is minimal. All hash algorithms will eventually be cracked. It's the nature of hashing that the signature is not necessarily unique. Otherwise, it'd be called compression rather than hashing. The goal is to find an algorithm that will produce unique results under the most common conditions, and be least likely to produce the same result for two messages with purely algorithmic differences.
On the other hand, a good cipher can potentially be technologically unbreakable. So everyone is trying to find this holy grail (especially because once quantum computing comes along, today's strongest ciphers will amount to nothing) because it is theoretically possible, while for hash algorithms, this holy grail by definition doesn't exist, so researchers will only put enough time and effort to get to the next level of security when the previous level is threatened.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but since you're currently modded insightful, I'm going to respond as if it is a serious point.
Taxes and death are the only two guarantees in life. It's not whether there are taxes (just like it's not whether you'll die or not), but how your taxes are used--what benefits you receive from your tax money. And if you want to see a misuse of taxes, this so isn't it. Your federal taxes have also been subsidizing the oil companies since the 80's. The oil companies had to be bailed out 'cause of low gas prices back then. Those subsidies have just been put on the table for removal a few days ago. We were paying $3 a gallon, and our government was practically paying the oil companies on top of that. I know states do the same for refinery upgrades.
Now, just imagine if all that money had gone to subsidizing renewable energy installation instead of oil production and refinement. What with a little more from both the feds and the states, we might've had solar panels on the roofs of every new house built in the past 7 years. Imagine how that would've impacted our current energy problems, reliance on foreign oil, not to mention on our environment.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if the object receiving the punch doesn't give way, you will share the force of the punch and end up hurting yourself. That's assuming you don't hurt yourself on making contact in the first place.
CAPTCHA: clitoris
Distant explosions has appeared to improve lately. Sounds do reach the camera realistically. Lightning is another story though...there are still movies that can't seem to get that right.
The kicks in kung fu movies are possible, though not likely. The body's isn't static; training can condition a body to not break down upon releasing that amount of power, not to mention enable the body to exert that kind of force in the first place. That having been said, there are numerous occasions when an untrained or inexperienced person will try to kick someone and end up flying backwards instead.
Oh, and on top of what you said about slow motion, audio for many slow motions scenes do drop in pitch. Or they're silent. Which is also possible, because from a mental perspective, if you're actually experiencing something in slow motion (very possible), you're not likely to be registering audio at all.
1) Offer higher-quality video services to paying viewers.
2) Offer higher-quality video services to paying uploaders.
3) Offer higher-quality video services on a per-video basis to uploaders.
Google is primarily a search company who makes money on advertisements based on search. Text ads based on video content based on description and tags is a start, but tagging has to be much better before this produces useful ads. Search also needs to be better, with more options and filters and such.
But as I've said before, I'm of the opinion that youtube should license their video generating software out to big media with the condition that videos can be found through youtube's search/browse system. Maybe even offer the option of caching too like what akami does. Put video ads before and after the hosted stuff, not on the non-hosted videos.
On the contrary. In Chinese mythology, it is possible for a human to pass on and become a diety, as opposed to becoming reincarnated. Such instances are rare and reserved for the very exceptional of people, but it is common for family members to believe that their deceased loved one has become a diety whom might watch over the rest of the family.
As such, there are also myths about animals who've managed to live beyond their natural lifespan and whom have gathered power enough to rival and surpass numerous dieties. So yes, even animals can be diefied, albeit the more appropriate term would be demonized.
So absolute agnosticism isn't unattainable, merely not compatible with Abrahamic religions, where there is and can only be one diety.
Yes and yes!!! Bingo!
A bit of strategic nudging from the RIAA here and there with their lawyers, and we might just see many of the large commercial audio tools (rippers and players) entirely drop non-drm format support in an upcoming version. iTMS for example, might entirely drop their mp3 encoding support.
Of course, in reality, mp3's won't be going anywhere, patent violation or not; it's far too established. We'll see wma's more often, but private music collections will still be mp3.
It's simple personal economics: if you don't want it, don't buy it.
Thanks for stating the blindingly obvious. The question that everyone's been asking all this time is: How many people want it?
Remember, Jobs wants 10% of the market in a year. Apple might get 10% of the smartphone market. But that's not 10% of the whole cellphone market.
The only difference is that the portable mp3 market (heck, the mp3 device market in general) was very, very young when the iPod first came out. The mobile phone market is much more mature. It's young compared to say, the hardwood furniture market, but the first mobile phones came out not long after the same time IBM made their PC intro--smartphones specifically since the Newton. Apple's trying to break into an established market with something that is inferior in some instances to existing products at lower price points.
That, and it took 3 generations for the iPod to catch on. I'd imagine it'll take at least until gen 2 before the iPhone begins to gain in popularity.
Not everyone wants fame and glory. Some people are content to live their lives out simply and in relative obscurity, doing menial jobs, without the headache of building and maintaining a reputation, only assisting when asked but rarely otherwise.
Bruce Lee once touched hands with a waiter at a restaurant (friendly, I suppose, though I doubt anyone will ever know for sure). Afterwards, he lamented that there are many unknown kung fu masters out there waiting on tables.
I see the same thing here.
YouTube deals fall apart, the center cannot hold
Big content producers are going to want to retain control over their own content, obviously. And it's so easy to do so with the internet. You don't need youtube if you can develop your own video site with flash player and all in six months.
What youtube should do is offer to license its software or host the content, and charge for licensing and/or hosting. It can slap ads on those videos that aren't paying for either service, but not for their paying customers. Licensing their software should also include the stipulation that youtube can link to their content or content page via search results.
Otherwise, youtube would only be good for homemade videos. Which is a large enough market in and of itself. But don't expect big content producers with their own means of putting their videos on the web to sign on.
I merely use code as an example to illustrate why the question of patents is not so cut and dry. There are always two sides of the coin. You can't just say patents are evil and do away with them entirely. It's finding that right balance between the interests of the inventor and the interests of the public. That's why patents are such a sticky subject matter. The line needs to be carefully but firmly drawn. And to do that, all perspectives have to be examined and taken into consideration, not just the mainstream ones or the ones that are most agreeable. The more ridiculous ones can be dismissed after consideration, but not until then.
That having been said, for the record, I am personally against software patents, for a variety of reasons. Ideas should not be patentable. Physical implementations, tangible objects, certainly, but not the idea itself. The same thing applies to genetic code, organisms, drugs, etc. The pill should be patentable (assuming it fits the other criteria for patentability), but the formula should not. Allowing method patents would be like patenting the idea of coating a gel cap to allow for easier consumption, and that should definitely be disallowed.
Something that is meaningful has value over time. It ages well. Acquiring a skill or some newfound experience, for example, would be meaningful. Something as simple as pottery, or carpentry, painting or even playing an instrument, would be meaningful. As is learning a new programming language. Using the skill in a meaningful manner would be even better. Making a table, a set of vases, for example. Or a new firefox extension, for that matter.
Television and games are largely meaningless pursuits because they do not contribute (good or bad) to your life. You're watching or playing someone else's (fictional) life, exchanging the time you have to live and do something with your own life for the opportunity to do something for a fantasy world that does not have any bearing on this one, or in the case of video games, resets after completing it.
One can argue that you can gain experience from watching television that you might not have otherwise, or gain certain skills from playing video games. However, I don't believe these are very strong arguments. We know how well TV and movies reflect real life, so it is more likely to get false experiences from it than real experiences, and the reaction-time/reflex/visualization/whatever skill from video games both are merely a correlative relationship and not a casual relationship, and for skills that are causally related to playing video games, not everyone can use video games to develop them. In short, there are better ways to gain the same skills, that are far more meaningful. An example off the top of my head, some form of martial art or sport fighting can develop reaction time and motorary precision.
The lives of animals do have meaning. Everything they do, they do to continue the existence of their species, to propogate. Which doesn't seem very grand or amazing, but it is meaningful. On the other hand, that's what humans have been doing too. Medical and technological advances are for the purposes of propogation. From the acquisition of that knowledge and development of those skills, humans have become the most successful at this point in our planet's history. And in the end, that's really all that meaningfulness comes down to, even for us. Sure, rebuilding a '69 Chevy Impala engine doesn't appear to directly relate to this kind of success, but it does contribute to our success, indirectly. That's because the knowledge and experience gained from learning how to rebuild engines can be applied elsewhere, perhaps to eventually improve or even save lifes. And that means increasing our rate of success for the species as a whole.
I sincerely hope that was said in jest.
Creating something requires money. Raw materials for production aside, R&D has expenses. It's not code, and even coding something requires time. If you can't make money to survive using that time spent writing that code, why write it in the first place. Yes, there is personal gratification or charity. But this comes only after you can meet the daily needs of food, clothing, and shelter.
And don't make the patent office earn their budget through the number patents they grant.
This is indeed ridiculous. But I do think compensation per review is a good incentive. Compensation, after all, makes for a speedier process. But while quantity increases, quality, however, suffers.
In truth, I don't think patent examiners should be determining the validity of patents at all. I think independent domain experts should be doing it. Categorize the patents my field of relevancy (patents should be able to fall into multiple categories). Having panels of a fixed number of experts in that category review incoming patents for obviousness, prior art, etc. would solve a multitude of problems. The rest of the experts in a particular category that are not part of the panel can rate the experts' reviews, and those with low scores would be kicked off the category or the system itself. Compensate the experts for each review, negative or positive.
Experts, of course, should have some sort of degree or certification, or should have proof of experience (like verifiable industry experience, etc.). And obviously, those who sneak through the cracks will be removed rather quickly if the body of legitmate experts in each category are sufficiently large.
And the moment you begin selling what it is you made, Walmart will purchase one and copy it, undercut your prices, selling at a loss until your company's flat broke and out of business, then raise the prices back to yours to make a profit again. Walmart hence makes the big bucks, while you go deep into debt.
Maybe because most people on /. have a better grasp of perl than English. Words in English might have an overall, general meaning, but many words are best used only in certain, specific contexts determined by the nuances in the definition of the word. Not everyone understands this, and ends up using the inappropriate word. Even though everyone pretty much understands the intention, as everyone knows the general meaning, the word is incorrectly used.
Admission is the (usually grudging but not necessarily) revocation of a previously explicit or implied assertion or denial (which are actually the same thing; denial is merely a negative assertion). If Ballmer never asserted or denied implicitly or explicitly a certain sales target for Vista, then there's no admission in a statement. As such, Ballmer was referencing assertions made by other people--namely, financial analysts.
That, or the bragging rights. Without copyright, anyone can claim to have written anything. Even the BSD license requires that BSD code remain under the BSD license (though that's about all the license specifies).
Violence is not necessarily a bad method of solving disputes. It is only when it gets out of control. Take the revolutionary war for example. And while it's easy for things to spiral out of control, that by no means makes a violent solution a poor one.
Case in point, if someone was making credible threates to rape your daughter (or sister, or wife, or whatever), would you wait for the police to arrest that person after the crime and let the courts handle it, or attempt to permanently disable and possibly kill that person before it happens? This is an extreme case which calls for an extreme solution. The part that is extreme isn't the suggestion of violence, but the ultimate goal of permanently disabling or killing a person. Perhaps the courts from the former possible solution will sentence the person to death or life in prison--equally as extreme but without the violence.
However, consider the following scenario: A thief grabs a woman's purse. You could wait for the police to apprehend the thief, but you instead run after the thief and tackle him, pinning him to the ground until police arrive. In certain juristictions, you could be charged with assault, and the thief possibly slapped on the hand and let go. GP's point suddenly becomes far more insightful.
The problem with endorsing violence comes when the level of response doesn't match the situation. However, this could be said of any punitive measure. What level of violence matches what type of conflict is no more subjective than current sentencing guidelines. That is, both are completely subjective (see the sentencing guidelines for hackers and copyright infringers as examples of this), and the only thing that separates the two is that one is codified and the other is not. The obvious solution would be to codify the acceptable levels of violence for various levels of conflict.
It is, however, a daunting task in that there is much to cover, but no more difficult than creating today's existing laws and guidelines. Which is to say, there will be errors intially, there will be loopholes, but the system will sort itself out eventually.
Iraq is a good example of how not controlling levels of violence would be detrimental. Imagine arming every Iraqi with AK-47's and a clip or two, and telling them they can use it if they're threatened or their homes are invaded. Make the thugs think twice before bursting through doors. Make them pay for their kidnappings and assassinations. Making gun ownership illegal works only if the supply can be limited. That this is not the case means with limits (legal, financial, or otherwise) on weapons, the ones who are eager and willing to use violence will have power over those who aren't. And that's what we're seeing in Iraq today.
Of course, the US soldiers there would probably be scared shitless if every Iraqi on the streets were armed to the teeth and capable of using those arms competently, so it'll never happen. But this, I believe, ties right back into GP's point.
If ever was there a comment more deserving of an insightful mod, I haven't seen it.
Reading up and down the topics, all I see are the same counter arguments:
It's not Linux's fault for not having this feature; it's Microsoft's fault for being closed.
It's the user's/organization's fault for not using a FOSS alternative instead.
This archetypical response from the Linux community and fanbase is exactly the issue parent addresses. And all parent gets in response is more of the same thing. So, I'm going to put it in a different way, far more bluntly, and hopefully, maybe I can across get the point parent makes.
Simply speaking, nobody in the corporate world cares about placing blame. Either something works, or something doesn't. If something doesn't work, it needs to be fixed or replaced. End of story. Of course, the guy who made it goes wrong is Nobody cares if there are alternatives that have the same features. Nobody cares who's fault it is that those alternatives don't work with the existing infrastructure. Nobody cares what workarounds there are. As someone managing a business, if my software can't work with a customer's data out of the box or with minimal configuration, then it's either time to change to something that can, or drop the customer, whichever one is cheaper. For big enough accounts, the return would dwarf the cost of buying new software. And since the established software set is sufficient, works with everyone else's data, and the competition has no new value to offer from a productivity standpoint, why even bother spending the money to switch in the first place?
And from a sales perspective, blaming the customer (a.k.a. the user), insulting the customer, or otherwise saying that the customer is somehow wrong is the quickest way to alienating the customer. Asserting intellectual superiority--or more accurately, domain knowledge superiority does not impress anyone.
This attitude of "our way or the highway" and "it's not our fault; why should we do anything about it" has got to go before Linux can even begin to see mainstream adoption. Or do people not want to see Linux topple the evil empire?
Yeah, I'll take the karma hit. It needs to be said though.
GP is right. This doesn't save the environment. It merely maintains it. Which is to say, while if the US switches completely over to ethanol or other biofuels (and there's as much a chance of this really happening as there is of the US switching over to metric completely as it is already), all it will do is slow down the increase in carbon gasses--significantly, mind you, but there's still an increase coming from other countries like *ahem* China *ahem*.
A negative return would be needed to actually save the our ecology from eventual collapse. And that means that alternative fuels should be either an intermediate solution--some kind of stepping stone, or it should be skipped over completely as we move to clean forms of energy production. While I think alternative fuels is good if we could use it to produce the devices for clean energy production (those solar panels require power to make, and it would be much more environmentally friendly if it were made with ethanol than petrol), I also think it's dangerous if we paused there, as people will stop seeing the massive environmental changes and think everything's ok again (and consequently forget about the second step of moving to clean energy sources) when in fact we've only slowed the acceleration.
On the other hand, shooting straight for 99% clean energy production would eliminate this possibility, even if in the short run, things won't seem to be getting any better and will actually get worse. That's the route that I'd prefer, as it seems like there's a huge ethanol backing in DC, largely because we grow so much corn a part of it has to be destroyed anyway or the already-low prices would plummet. Which means we'll almost definitely be stuck at that waypoint. Which also means we'd be prolonging (but lessening) our suffering towards eventual demise instead of outright healing the cause of our ailment.
I think most of the upgrading talk comes from the hardcore gamers. Games always push the envelope when it comes to hardware requirements, especially so because the hardware specs of a gamer's machine can be a moving target. There isn't much talk about having to upgrade Mac or Linux boxen because most people using those OS's don't game with them, or aren't interested in playing the newest games on the first day of release. They either game on a separate machine (which does require upgrading), or, they stick to one or two games (WoW) and play nothing else on their computer.
Eradication is a natural consequence of resource competition. The difference between other animals and humans/humanoids is that we are genetically coded to have a high ability to adapt. While most animals adapt on a timescale spanning multiple generations, we adapt to the changing environment within our lifetimes. Thus, we were able to out-adapt our competition, using up the resources they also need and thus eradicating them.
Subjugation was what created society in the first place. Domestication of plants is agriculture. It's a component of our adaptibility, that we can use other forms of life to further our own survival. And, we do it to other humans all the time. Civilization itself can be summarized as the subjugation of the masses by a few, albeit a little unfairly.
This whole concept of equality is a very new thing, and it's still being refined today.
Most likely, we wiped them out because they couldn't adapt to us as quickly as we could to them. Or, to put it another way, humans entered their environment, and they couldn't adapt to this change quickly enough. So they died and we survived. It's a cold point of view, but natural selection is a logical process, not an emotional one.
It's not really quite just that. The interstate system was created based upon a broad interpretation of the "commerce clause" of the constitution. That is, congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce or some stuff like that.
Driver's licenses and other forms of ID are state-issued. The transportation system within a state is largely governed by the state. Even interstates aren't controlled by the US government in this respect, though I do believe federal money is used to maintain those roads. The state specifies the speed limit, patrols it, etc. You don't see the FBI lying in wait behind a groove of trees, but you do see state troopers.
A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.
Anyway, true Republicans would be appalled at a national ID. States rights, remember? It's probably why Maine passed this resolution practically unanimously. Democrats are the ones who should be endorsing it.
Hashes are more important than ciphers. But hashes can only be secured so far. Beyond that, the return is minimal. All hash algorithms will eventually be cracked. It's the nature of hashing that the signature is not necessarily unique. Otherwise, it'd be called compression rather than hashing. The goal is to find an algorithm that will produce unique results under the most common conditions, and be least likely to produce the same result for two messages with purely algorithmic differences.
On the other hand, a good cipher can potentially be technologically unbreakable. So everyone is trying to find this holy grail (especially because once quantum computing comes along, today's strongest ciphers will amount to nothing) because it is theoretically possible, while for hash algorithms, this holy grail by definition doesn't exist, so researchers will only put enough time and effort to get to the next level of security when the previous level is threatened.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but since you're currently modded insightful, I'm going to respond as if it is a serious point.
Taxes and death are the only two guarantees in life. It's not whether there are taxes (just like it's not whether you'll die or not), but how your taxes are used--what benefits you receive from your tax money. And if you want to see a misuse of taxes, this so isn't it. Your federal taxes have also been subsidizing the oil companies since the 80's. The oil companies had to be bailed out 'cause of low gas prices back then. Those subsidies have just been put on the table for removal a few days ago. We were paying $3 a gallon, and our government was practically paying the oil companies on top of that. I know states do the same for refinery upgrades.
Now, just imagine if all that money had gone to subsidizing renewable energy installation instead of oil production and refinement. What with a little more from both the feds and the states, we might've had solar panels on the roofs of every new house built in the past 7 years. Imagine how that would've impacted our current energy problems, reliance on foreign oil, not to mention on our environment.