I know that the earth is round, but does it really make a difference? Is there something that you can do in your daily life where the curvature of the earth needs to be accounted for?
Engineers do. Aircraft runways often are long enough that they need to consider the natural curve of the earth over long distances when being planned & built. Also, pretty much any field to do with navigation, aeronautics, astrophysics, broadcasting/telecommunications (line of sight issues)...actually it's quite a diverse range of fields that rely on the assumption of a spherical Earth, whether or not you actually realise it. Even simple things like dealing with time zones, or whether you do things at night time or day time, are due entirely to the Earth's curvature.
Can you go out in your back yard and prove that the earth is round? I'ld like to hear your method. And if you can't, why can't you?
If your house backs on to a flat plane like a desert or ocean (ie. a horizon), you can. Otherwise, you can't do it yourself unless you own a high altitude aircraft or trust third parties. This is because of the sheer size of the Earth; on any given sphere, the larger the radius, the less difference there is between the circumference and a tanget for an arc between points A and B. A and B in this case is the unobstructed view distance of a human.
It's great you feel that way, but if you could either just answer the question or admit you're wrong, that'd just be wonderful.
I can only garner your blatant and continued refusal to do so and continued use of ad hominem (that is, crying "troll" and not addressing the clearly superior argument) is proof you are in fact the troll here. All that's left now is for you to blame the "jews and gay niggers" and link goatse as your reference, and we grown ups can be on our merry way. Cheers.
And one could equally say that RFC822 is the result of some bureaucrat dictating that 2 email accounts can't have the same address, with no way of providing for exceptions.
But his name isn't John Smith87. It's John Smith. You've just forced him to change his email username for technical reasons, just as you would have to with 'hlibshitz' to 'hlibshi87tz' or 'hlibsh1tz' or 'hlibshi+z'. Sure, one is because limitations in the email system doesn't allow the same username per domain for different accounts, the other is because limitations in the Verizon system don't allow usernames containing profanity. But both end up with the user forced to choose a different name.
Fine then, we'll play your game. Obviously you're incapable of understanding anything but a car analogy, and anybody who uses anything else must be a troll and wrong. Yes, I've seen your type before.
What if you can't afford the Ferrari? You physically don't have enough money to buy it, but you still want it. Do you still maintain that this means you don't really want it?
What happens if we replace "Ferrari" with "food", and "you" with "starving African children". They must want to die of hunger, right?
But if Pepsi were the only soft drink around, and you didn't like it, would you expect them to change the taste of it just for you? And if they didn't, would it be because no other beverage company has bothered to set up shop in your town, or because the changes needed to service you aren't financially viable?
The price you end up paying for the Ferrari is the price point by which you determined the trade off between losing money and owning a Ferrari, or keeping your money but having no Ferrari. Just because you ended up buying it, doesn't change your want for it (ie. desire or preference, synonyms) at a certain price.
I want flying monkeys. I'd pay $100 each for them. But I get no flying monkeys (because they don't exist). Does that mean I never really wanted them in the first place?
Yes, but what people WILL pay (because their only other choice is missing out), and what people WANT to pay are not the same thing, as you initially suggested.
You can say all you want but facts show otherwise.
You have facts that show Europeans and Oceanians actually want higher prices? Would you care to give a link to these facts?
*ALL* of us vote with our wallets. And the ones that, like you, vote "no" are a minority compared with those that vote "yes".
True. But then there are some who vote with their wallets AND their broadband connection parked squarely on ThePirateBay 24/7. These are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us.
They can claim what they want (that high prices is due to piracy, for example) but the fact is that they sell they price they do because they understand that's the price they'll get maximum profits (or else, they'd sell even more expensively).
No, the fact is that Oceanic distributors dictate their prices based on Europe, and Europe is higher priced based on higher morals (=less piracy) and the need to translate into 100 different languages.
The "they pay a higher price so they must want to!" argument is obviously a logical fallacy, but even the "they charge what people are willing to pay" argument is a fallacy. They will charge whatever their accountants predict will be the maximum price a person will pay (compensating for competitor's prices, economic factors, piracy etc, then decreasing prices until they hit the right point), and the rest of us have to ante up or miss out. Or perhaps you honestly believe that there is an affordable but ridiculously high price point where no one will pay? Tell you what, release a popular game at a, say, USD$99 price point, then see how many people still buy it. Oh wait, don't bother! Somebody beat you to it. Looks like USians must want to pay USD$100 for all their games.
The targeting laser is used to guide guided munitions (bombs, missiles, shells), not to target any unguided weapons (dumb bombs, machine guns, _another laser_).
That's done using radar and/or optical targeting, not by trying to point another laser at the missile.
The ABL system uses infrared sensors for initial missile detection. After initial detection, three low power tracking lasers calculate missile course, speed, an aimpoint, and air turbulence. Air turbulence deflects and distorts the laser beam. The ABL adaptive optics use the turbulence measurement to compensate for atmospheric errors. The main laser, located in a turret on the aircraft nose, is fired for 3 to 5 seconds, causing the missile to break up in flight near the launch area.
I'm not talking about the laser guidance system that a missile might use, but the laser guidance system that the anti-missile laser uses. Unless I grossly misread the article, it's about the USAF making its missiles protected against anti-missile lasers.
I think the point you're trying to get across is, what's the point of making a missile protected against a destructive laser, if the more effective missile defence is to confuse the missile's own guidance system. However it's a moot point, since lasers that actually do shoot down the missile exist, are actually in use, and are being put in place by the USAF themselves no less.
It's not like the USAF is talking about protecting their missiles against some theoretical future laser defence system; the system they want to protect against has already been developed and put into use - by THEM. So they already know it exists.
I believe specifically that this "laser-guided anti-missile destructive laser" may be a more effective defence system because it means you don't have to carry a missile defence system for each type of possible guidance system (namely radio, radar, laser, heat-seeking, guide-by-wire, remote-controlled, robot/AI-controlled, etc). That would be my best guess though, I'm certainly no expert on the subject.
And now we can get back to the point: if this laser missile defence system is so effective that it can protect against any missile regardless of its guidance system (and who better to judge the system's effectiveness than the people who created and use it), then it would be in the best interests of the USAF to develop a missile that can circumvent such a system if/when it gets into the hands of an enemy.
Which is where I came in: several posters have already pointed out that it's futile to try and protect a missile against a destructive laser, since no laser defence is terribly effective. However, the laser defence system is guided by lasers - defeat the lasers guiding the destructive laser, and you've defeated the destructive laser, pure and simple.
Of course, debating the futility (and waste of resources) of developing a laser-defence-defence, then a laser-defence-defence-defence and so on, may be a legitimate argument, but that's not really the point of the article nor its current thread of discussion.
It is one thing to portray a torture scene in a TV show such as 24. But to put the control of those actions in the hands of a player is different. It is not such a stretch to think that what may be acceptable in a movie may not be acceptable in a game as a result of the presence of the aspect of choice.
On the other hand, Kiefer Sutherland had to actually, phsyically act out those scenes, yet he hasn't turned into a serial killer. And by taking the role, he chose to do so, as do the people who watch the show. Which is pretty much the same as a person choosing to play a game, and choosing to perform those acts in game, except in a far less realistic manner.
Then you have the conundrum that, if the gamer is truly given the choice of performing these acts in a game (and lets face it, the actual feasibility of choice of commiting violence in a game that allows it is much rarer than the illusion of choice), you have to wonder why they chose that direction in the first place. And then you have to prove there was some compelling psychiatric reason they did so that can link to real-life behaviour, and not rely on reasons like "because the game lets me", "I wanted to explore all options in the game" or "in the game, violence is the more beneficial/entertaining option".
If I'm not mistaken, the aircraft-borne lasers currently (soon to be?) fitted use 2 lasers - one for targeting, one for destruction. The destructive ones may be difficult/impossible to shield against/redirect, but the targeting laser will be a piece of cake. Without targeting, you're trying to aim a thin destructive laser beam directly at a small destructive missile traveling hundreds of km/h. Without missing and hitting an ally/civillian in the sky or on the ground. In which case you might as well be firing a chaingun or something at it.
The interesting thing to study is then why Europe is wanting to pay so higher prices for the same goods.
As an Australian who is in the same boat as the Europeans, I can categorically say we don't want higher prices. Video game prices are in fact a big issue recently in the Australian gaming community (that and Fallout 3 being banned), with sites like The Age's Screeplay Blog constantly having one article or another devoted to the inflated prices we pay, even for digital downloads (see: Call of Duty 4 on Steam).
Those of us who vote with our wallets try to get the message across, but it's undone by the few who pirate the stuff instead, providing argument to the developers to claim that decreased sales are all piracy's fault, which in turn justifies not only keeping prices the same (or increased to compensate), but copy protection mechanisms get more and more imposing.
That sounds exactly like the Street Performer Protocol, except implemented in such a way that the RIAA gets a bunch of money now, for the trade off that the original copyright holders (ie the artists and record companies) get neither financial renumeration for their work, nor copyright or other legal protection - whether they are affiliated with the RIAA or not - until the end of time. And it relies on these "internet users" either voluntarily donating money to this fund (because if there's one thing pirates enjoy more than getting content for free, it's paying for content they may not receive), or everyone's forced to contribute equal an equal amount, whether they download movies/music/etc or not.
Sigh...I see you STILL don't get it. How embarrassing...
Here's a simple one: YES or NO.
You would support a law that stipulates lawyers must provide their services to people for free to anyone who wants it, but they may charge money if working for a commercial entity, if they wish. Once again, YES or NO.
Would that be in a similar way to how you confuse intangible goods and tangible goods by claiming first sale in an argument on copyright?
Are you seriously claiming that not moving your car after the meter expires is immoral?
Are you seriously claiming it isn't? You've abused the trust in the system
You're taking advantage of a service without proper renumeration
Which means you're claiming to be superior to others
And you're depriving others of that service
Well, it's like longing for something so expensive that it is beyond your means;
Really? I'd say it's more like you see this hot girl at a party, then she turns around and she has warts and growths all over her, a moustache, terrible, rotting teeth, an annoying nasally voice, and to boot she's a real bitch with an ugly personality. But then you keep trying to claim she's attractive, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that you've already wasted the night trying to get her attention.
Copyright does infringe on free speech, but I don't denounce copyright for doing this
Then why, oh why, did you start this conversation by attacking someone for defending copyright, and start claiming that free speech means you should be able to copy anything you like?
I'm fine with copyright including a reproduction right.
So why are you arguing with me? I support copyright, you support copyright, what exactly is your problem?
What's with the unless? Fair use is an exception to copyright. It's a utilitarian exception, which seems sensible, since copyright is utilitarian anyway
And to think, just moments ago, you were saying that the utilitarian way would be to allow anyone to copy a work.
Getting a copyright should be neither hard nor expensive. Just not automatic.
Here's an idea: If you don't care how easy it is to get one, why don't you just mandate that an artist can protect his works merely by stating publicly that he doesn't want it copied? There's no reason it couldn't work, after all currently we do the exact opposite of that.
Patents require an inventor to apply for a patent on their invention, and to fill out lots of paperwork, pay substantial fees, and renew the patent periodically lest it expire sooner than it otherwise might. And of course, this is all traditional in copyright law. It's not really that foreign to us
Damn right it's not foreign. In fact, your idea of being able to register a copyright seems like a perfect job for the U.S. Copyright Office.
It's funny you mention patents though, since theoretically it's possible to stop others stealing your ideas even without a patent.
No, I mean the copyright law of the United States of America. For copyright law purposes, architectural works include things like houses, but not things like bridges.
Whereas the English language definition includes pretty much any construction, which is what you dislike, hence the English language definition is too broad for your liking. Unless you're claiming that even the US copyright law definition, which (allegedly) only defines architecture as residences, is still too broad.
No, you're wrong there.
Oh, thank goodness I was only wrong there. I was beginning to think you though everything I said was wrong, turns out it was just that one irrelevant paragraph. Luckily though, copyright law specifically protects architecture.
Where are you getting the 'single act' from? I see no reason why you co
Slashdot Mirror
I know that the earth is round, but does it really make a difference? Is there something that you can do in your daily life where the curvature of the earth needs to be accounted for?
Engineers do. Aircraft runways often are long enough that they need to consider the natural curve of the earth over long distances when being planned & built. Also, pretty much any field to do with navigation, aeronautics, astrophysics, broadcasting/telecommunications (line of sight issues)...actually it's quite a diverse range of fields that rely on the assumption of a spherical Earth, whether or not you actually realise it. Even simple things like dealing with time zones, or whether you do things at night time or day time, are due entirely to the Earth's curvature.
Can you go out in your back yard and prove that the earth is round? I'ld like to hear your method. And if you can't, why can't you?
If your house backs on to a flat plane like a desert or ocean (ie. a horizon), you can. Otherwise, you can't do it yourself unless you own a high altitude aircraft or trust third parties. This is because of the sheer size of the Earth; on any given sphere, the larger the radius, the less difference there is between the circumference and a tanget for an arc between points A and B. A and B in this case is the unobstructed view distance of a human.
It's great you feel that way, but if you could either just answer the question or admit you're wrong, that'd just be wonderful.
I can only garner your blatant and continued refusal to do so and continued use of ad hominem (that is, crying "troll" and not addressing the clearly superior argument) is proof you are in fact the troll here. All that's left now is for you to blame the "jews and gay niggers" and link goatse as your reference, and we grown ups can be on our merry way. Cheers.
And one could equally say that RFC822 is the result of some bureaucrat dictating that 2 email accounts can't have the same address, with no way of providing for exceptions.
But his name isn't John Smith87. It's John Smith. You've just forced him to change his email username for technical reasons, just as you would have to with 'hlibshitz' to 'hlibshi87tz' or 'hlibsh1tz' or 'hlibshi+z'. Sure, one is because limitations in the email system doesn't allow the same username per domain for different accounts, the other is because limitations in the Verizon system don't allow usernames containing profanity. But both end up with the user forced to choose a different name.
Fine then, we'll play your game. Obviously you're incapable of understanding anything but a car analogy, and anybody who uses anything else must be a troll and wrong. Yes, I've seen your type before.
What if you can't afford the Ferrari? You physically don't have enough money to buy it, but you still want it. Do you still maintain that this means you don't really want it?
What happens if we replace "Ferrari" with "food", and "you" with "starving African children". They must want to die of hunger, right?
He asked for an email address based on his name, just like millions of other customers. It's a perfectly reasonable request
So if there are two John Smith's who both want this...?
But if Pepsi were the only soft drink around, and you didn't like it, would you expect them to change the taste of it just for you? And if they didn't, would it be because no other beverage company has bothered to set up shop in your town, or because the changes needed to service you aren't financially viable?
So you're saying I don't want flying monkeys? I don't have them, therefore I mustn't have wanted them, QED?
Do you even know what "desire" means?
The price you end up paying for the Ferrari is the price point by which you determined the trade off between losing money and owning a Ferrari, or keeping your money but having no Ferrari. Just because you ended up buying it, doesn't change your want for it (ie. desire or preference, synonyms) at a certain price.
I want flying monkeys. I'd pay $100 each for them. But I get no flying monkeys (because they don't exist). Does that mean I never really wanted them in the first place?
Yes, but what people WILL pay (because their only other choice is missing out), and what people WANT to pay are not the same thing, as you initially suggested.
And because of the crazy long copyright terms now, innovation is being stifled.
A law that prevents people from ripping off existing products causes innovation to be stifled?
Unless the cameras magically turn off whenever a cop is on screen, they ARE subjected to at least the same surveillance.
You can say all you want but facts show otherwise.
You have facts that show Europeans and Oceanians actually want higher prices? Would you care to give a link to these facts?
*ALL* of us vote with our wallets. And the ones that, like you, vote "no" are a minority compared with those that vote "yes".
True. But then there are some who vote with their wallets AND their broadband connection parked squarely on ThePirateBay 24/7. These are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us.
They can claim what they want (that high prices is due to piracy, for example) but the fact is that they sell they price they do because they understand that's the price they'll get maximum profits (or else, they'd sell even more expensively).
No, the fact is that Oceanic distributors dictate their prices based on Europe, and Europe is higher priced based on higher morals (=less piracy) and the need to translate into 100 different languages.
The "they pay a higher price so they must want to!" argument is obviously a logical fallacy, but even the "they charge what people are willing to pay" argument is a fallacy. They will charge whatever their accountants predict will be the maximum price a person will pay (compensating for competitor's prices, economic factors, piracy etc, then decreasing prices until they hit the right point), and the rest of us have to ante up or miss out. Or perhaps you honestly believe that there is an affordable but ridiculously high price point where no one will pay? Tell you what, release a popular game at a, say, USD$99 price point, then see how many people still buy it. Oh wait, don't bother! Somebody beat you to it. Looks like USians must want to pay USD$100 for all their games.
The targeting laser is used to guide guided munitions (bombs, missiles, shells), not to target any unguided weapons (dumb bombs, machine guns, _another laser_).
That's done using radar and/or optical targeting, not by trying to point another laser at the missile.
I beg to differ:
The ABL system uses infrared sensors for initial missile detection. After initial detection, three low power tracking lasers calculate missile course, speed, an aimpoint, and air turbulence. Air turbulence deflects and distorts the laser beam. The ABL adaptive optics use the turbulence measurement to compensate for atmospheric errors. The main laser, located in a turret on the aircraft nose, is fired for 3 to 5 seconds, causing the missile to break up in flight near the launch area.
I'm not talking about the laser guidance system that a missile might use, but the laser guidance system that the anti-missile laser uses. Unless I grossly misread the article, it's about the USAF making its missiles protected against anti-missile lasers.
I think the point you're trying to get across is, what's the point of making a missile protected against a destructive laser, if the more effective missile defence is to confuse the missile's own guidance system. However it's a moot point, since lasers that actually do shoot down the missile exist, are actually in use, and are being put in place by the USAF themselves no less.
It's not like the USAF is talking about protecting their missiles against some theoretical future laser defence system; the system they want to protect against has already been developed and put into use - by THEM. So they already know it exists.
I believe specifically that this "laser-guided anti-missile destructive laser" may be a more effective defence system because it means you don't have to carry a missile defence system for each type of possible guidance system (namely radio, radar, laser, heat-seeking, guide-by-wire, remote-controlled, robot/AI-controlled, etc). That would be my best guess though, I'm certainly no expert on the subject.
And now we can get back to the point: if this laser missile defence system is so effective that it can protect against any missile regardless of its guidance system (and who better to judge the system's effectiveness than the people who created and use it), then it would be in the best interests of the USAF to develop a missile that can circumvent such a system if/when it gets into the hands of an enemy.
Which is where I came in: several posters have already pointed out that it's futile to try and protect a missile against a destructive laser, since no laser defence is terribly effective. However, the laser defence system is guided by lasers - defeat the lasers guiding the destructive laser, and you've defeated the destructive laser, pure and simple.
Of course, debating the futility (and waste of resources) of developing a laser-defence-defence, then a laser-defence-defence-defence and so on, may be a legitimate argument, but that's not really the point of the article nor its current thread of discussion.
I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time!
It is one thing to portray a torture scene in a TV show such as 24. But to put the control of those actions in the hands of a player is different. It is not such a stretch to think that what may be acceptable in a movie may not be acceptable in a game as a result of the presence of the aspect of choice.
On the other hand, Kiefer Sutherland had to actually, phsyically act out those scenes, yet he hasn't turned into a serial killer. And by taking the role, he chose to do so, as do the people who watch the show. Which is pretty much the same as a person choosing to play a game, and choosing to perform those acts in game, except in a far less realistic manner.
Then you have the conundrum that, if the gamer is truly given the choice of performing these acts in a game (and lets face it, the actual feasibility of choice of commiting violence in a game that allows it is much rarer than the illusion of choice), you have to wonder why they chose that direction in the first place. And then you have to prove there was some compelling psychiatric reason they did so that can link to real-life behaviour, and not rely on reasons like "because the game lets me", "I wanted to explore all options in the game" or "in the game, violence is the more beneficial/entertaining option".
If I'm not mistaken, the aircraft-borne lasers currently (soon to be?) fitted use 2 lasers - one for targeting, one for destruction. The destructive ones may be difficult/impossible to shield against/redirect, but the targeting laser will be a piece of cake. Without targeting, you're trying to aim a thin destructive laser beam directly at a small destructive missile traveling hundreds of km/h. Without missing and hitting an ally/civillian in the sky or on the ground. In which case you might as well be firing a chaingun or something at it.
The interesting thing to study is then why Europe is wanting to pay so higher prices for the same goods.
As an Australian who is in the same boat as the Europeans, I can categorically say we don't want higher prices. Video game prices are in fact a big issue recently in the Australian gaming community (that and Fallout 3 being banned), with sites like The Age's Screeplay Blog constantly having one article or another devoted to the inflated prices we pay, even for digital downloads (see: Call of Duty 4 on Steam).
Those of us who vote with our wallets try to get the message across, but it's undone by the few who pirate the stuff instead, providing argument to the developers to claim that decreased sales are all piracy's fault, which in turn justifies not only keeping prices the same (or increased to compensate), but copy protection mechanisms get more and more imposing.
That sounds exactly like the Street Performer Protocol, except implemented in such a way that the RIAA gets a bunch of money now, for the trade off that the original copyright holders (ie the artists and record companies) get neither financial renumeration for their work, nor copyright or other legal protection - whether they are affiliated with the RIAA or not - until the end of time. And it relies on these "internet users" either voluntarily donating money to this fund (because if there's one thing pirates enjoy more than getting content for free, it's paying for content they may not receive), or everyone's forced to contribute equal an equal amount, whether they download movies/music/etc or not.
where did these bad parents learn to become bad parents or not learn to become good ones
I blame Pacman.
Zelda? Really? My money's on Wii Music. There's not much reason for precision control of a deadly sword. A conductor's baton, however...
I see you're incapable of following basic instructions. And to think, you wondered why I believed you to be either irrational or grossly incompetent!
Good day.
Sigh...I see you STILL don't get it. How embarrassing...
Here's a simple one: YES or NO.
You would support a law that stipulates lawyers must provide their services to people for free to anyone who wants it, but they may charge money if working for a commercial entity, if they wish. Once again, YES or NO.
I think you're misunderstanding copyright here.
Would that be in a similar way to how you confuse intangible goods and tangible goods by claiming first sale in an argument on copyright?
Are you seriously claiming that not moving your car after the meter expires is immoral?
Are you seriously claiming it isn't?
You've abused the trust in the system
You're taking advantage of a service without proper renumeration
Which means you're claiming to be superior to others And you're depriving others of that service
Well, it's like longing for something so expensive that it is beyond your means;
Really? I'd say it's more like you see this hot girl at a party, then she turns around and she has warts and growths all over her, a moustache, terrible, rotting teeth, an annoying nasally voice, and to boot she's a real bitch with an ugly personality. But then you keep trying to claim she's attractive, which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that you've already wasted the night trying to get her attention.
Copyright does infringe on free speech, but I don't denounce copyright for doing this
Then why, oh why, did you start this conversation by attacking someone for defending copyright, and start claiming that free speech means you should be able to copy anything you like?
I'm fine with copyright including a reproduction right.
So why are you arguing with me? I support copyright, you support copyright, what exactly is your problem?
What's with the unless? Fair use is an exception to copyright. It's a utilitarian exception, which seems sensible, since copyright is utilitarian anyway
And to think, just moments ago, you were saying that the utilitarian way would be to allow anyone to copy a work.
Getting a copyright should be neither hard nor expensive. Just not automatic.
Here's an idea: If you don't care how easy it is to get one, why don't you just mandate that an artist can protect his works merely by stating publicly that he doesn't want it copied? There's no reason it couldn't work, after all currently we do the exact opposite of that.
Patents require an inventor to apply for a patent on their invention, and to fill out lots of paperwork, pay substantial fees, and renew the patent periodically lest it expire sooner than it otherwise might. And of course, this is all traditional in copyright law. It's not really that foreign to us
Damn right it's not foreign. In fact, your idea of being able to register a copyright seems like a perfect job for the U.S. Copyright Office.
It's funny you mention patents though, since theoretically it's possible to stop others stealing your ideas even without a patent.
No, I mean the copyright law of the United States of America. For copyright law purposes, architectural works include things like houses, but not things like bridges.
Whereas the English language definition includes pretty much any construction, which is what you dislike, hence the English language definition is too broad for your liking. Unless you're claiming that even the US copyright law definition, which (allegedly) only defines architecture as residences, is still too broad.
No, you're wrong there.
Oh, thank goodness I was only wrong there. I was beginning to think you though everything I said was wrong, turns out it was just that one irrelevant paragraph. Luckily though, copyright law specifically protects architecture.
Where are you getting the 'single act' from? I see no reason why you co