I understand what you mean. Pragmatically speaking, words are only profane if we chose for them to be. I need a better sig anyway. Haven't changed it in years
If I had mod points, you'd get all of them. When I read that passage for the first time myself, I saw that today's society does exactly this with laws.
If coldness is a measure of the absence of heat, or energy, then something which is 100x colder contains 100x less heat/energy. 0.03K contains 100x less energy than 3K, since K is a direct measure of energy content.
Of course it is predicated on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. Let us examine the possible consequences of your contention that human activity is perfectly natural.
Let's suppose that human activity, in its entirety, is perfectly natural. And yet, humans consider some actions (especially taken against other humans) as evil. This too, is perfectly natural. And the consequences, such as the creation of a justice system to protect society, etc. is perfectly natural as well. I digress. What I mean to say is that if all human activity is perfectly natural, then yes, humans can create, alter, or destroy niches. At the same time, it is perfectly natural for the parent post to criticize human actions that result in the destruction of niches.
And since it is perfectly natural for him to do so, by your statement, why are you opposed to his viewpoint? Actually, it is (consistent with your contention) perfectly natural for you to criticize his view, since all human activity is perfectly natural, just as it is perfectly natural for me to write this post.
I agree. I am one of the people who will raise standards in the industry, after I get my doctorate in Software Engineering, a degree offered by only three universities in the US.
It's going to take a phenomenal amount of work to introduce real standards of software development though.
I have a router that does that. Provides for up to 40 white-listed URLs, and only those. Dual firewalls, all the latest, even QoS (not that it matters). $100 @ Newegg. D-Link DIR-655.
Does not provide a bounce page, that I'm aware of.
OK, sure. You are paying for a the broadband service/utility that you have no equity in. Much like other consumables such as food or electricity, this is acceptable. But, since broadband is profitable your service provider is making a profit, resulting in expansion, and money flowing back into the economy.
If broadband were not profitable, then the government would take your money and pour it into broadband anyway (so that everyone can get some). It has the same effect as you directly paying for the expansion of broadband. It will have a negative effect on the economy because money is not flowing back into the economy, it is flowing into a pit that returns nothing.
To be fair though, you may be perfectly right in saying there is no difference between broadband and power in terms of profitability. I'm sure the power company must provide power even in situations where it would not be profitable, and by consequence it comes out of our pockets for them to do so. So I apologize, it most certainly is feasible. It's just a trade off of what's good for the economy and what's good for the individual and the "quality of life". Who's to say? It gets political after this point.
Yes, it certainly DOES mean that it is unfeasible. Profitability runs this country. If it is not profitable, then the government pays for it. If the government pays for it, then you pay for it. In summary, you are willing to lose money (no profitability) so that broadband can be delivered to you. Real feasible.
Man, that is one bad pun. I mean, everybody wants green energy, right? You think it coincidence that they used the Spanish word for green (Verde) to describe the power grid???
Alternatively, if anyone has had the opportunity to sing or hear the performance of Verde's Requiem, you may "rest" knowing that in the event of a disaster, the internet will still be working and that power problems can be diagnosed quickly and efficiently.
"These people deserve the verbal beatdowns they get. They are stupid zealots."
There is no such thing as a "stupid zealot". Foolish zealot, perhaps. But calling another person a stupid zealot indicates that you are a zealot for your position. All of us are stupid at some time or other, and (hopefully) all of us are zealots at some time of other. Calling someone a name is an easy way to write them off without considering first just how similar you are to them.
Single hardware compatibility list? Absolutely not! The strength of the PC is MODULARITY and standard INTERFACES. The reason you own a PC now and not a Mac is that PCs allow you to swap components. And, they permit lots of competition by allowing a free market.
What if I wanted to make and sell a hardware-based product? Could I? Just how hard would it be to get my product on that single hardware compatibility list? Hm?
And you didn't mention it, but the logical extension of your concept is a single software compatibility list. If your software isn't on the list, you can't load it. Perhaps I'm reading more into it that you meant, and if so, I apologize. But I'm a software engineer. I make hardware and software products. I do not want my financial success to be at the gracious mercy of Microsoft allowing me to install my product on my target market's computers.
Also, think of the manipulation. What if some commercial interest expressed an opinion that your software/hardware should be banned. Say the RIAA or MPAA? What if the law itself was wrong? [I'm not saying that the law is wrong. But the concept of "the law is always right" is wrong. Otherwise, we would not have a method for removing bad laws].
And we haven't even mentioned the government yet...
Simplicity is a dream. The problem is, simple does not meet the needs of everyone. [Jesus is the exception here]. You cannot make a computer that does meet everyone's needs, yet remains simple for everyone who uses it. Excuse me, there is a way - but the computer would have to interact uniquely to every person. I don't want to be known quite that well by my computer, if you get my drift.
Well sure,
My senior design project was to design and build a digital photo frame. It is in essense a mini-itx motherboard running Linux from Scratch and a GTK-based application that I wrote. Our device did not have a screen but plugged up to any computer monitor you wanted to buy, up to 1600x1200 resolution. I'm certain we could have plugged it into the network and transfered files that way.
When we started our project 1 1/2 years ago, there was no competition. We couldn't even find anyone who wanted the darn thing. Now the market is flooded.
Listen, if Microsoft wanted to support web developers they would let IE6 and IE7 be installed in parallel on the same OS. Forget the virtual PC business. I'm not even sure Microsoft can because they have so integrated IE into the operating system!
Apologies. I spoke from what I was told, not what I read. Upon reading the Constitution, there is no reference whatsoever to copyright. I am intrigued as to what basis any copyright law has, since they are apparently not on a state-by-state basis as suggested by these two amendments:
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You are forgetting one important point, sir. The premise that "Content" = "Media" is, to me, wrong. I buy the content, but that should not allow any restriction on the media. I believe it my right to use the content any way I choose, because I bought it.
Why should I have this right? Because our copyright system is based in the Constitution, and exists solely for the purpose of the public good, and solely for a limited amount of time.
No, imagine this. The universe exists, and everything comes from something. This is utterly incomprehensible, inherently false, yet obviously true. Now, imagine how any possible explaination for the "origin" of all things can exist within the closed system of a Universe that obeys the law of cause and effect.
Sure, have your string theory, multiple parallel universes, 11 dimensions of space, dark matter, dark energy, gravity and relativity. But no theory can ever explain the origin of a closed system, if that theory is contained completely within that closed system. The ignorance of this principle is astounding to one of even my feeble intelligence.
Alright, let me spell it out. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. All that is required to alter the orbit of the moon or the spin of the earth is a proper application of force. Launch enough mass off of the earth and it will move. Directly affecting the angular momentum of a planet may not be particularily easy, as force would have to be applied in such a way that the force would cause a rotation, and not just a push.
As Archimedes (220 B.C.) once said, "Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world". Simple Physics, really. Stick a lever 70 miles long into the earth and stick a rocket on it's end firing perpendicular to the planet. The Earth will move. Its like pushing a merry-go-round.
The act of the moon slowing down the rotation of the earth should not have any effect on the earth's orbit around the sun, unless you are postulating that the rotation of the earth helps maintain its current orbital pattern.
Angular rotation does indeed affect how a body travels (take spin on a baseball, for instance). But only where the angular rotation can exert a force (on air, for instance). Also, are you accounting for the Einsteinian theory that the earth rotates around the sun because the warped geometry of space due to gravity, much like a ball on giant rubber sheet?
In summary, I doubt that the spin of the earth has any effect on its orbital path, and even if does, the loss of rotation would shorten the average year, because the earth would move closer to the sun in the absense of this rotation. (The rotational effect, if any, is a force directed normal to the pull of gravity).
It was projected that in a matter of millions of years, the moon will cause the earth to stop rotating altogether. Without rotation, do you seriously think we will inhabit this planet?
For that matter, in a matter of millions of years, we should have developed a technology for making the earth rotate as fast as we wish, and moving the moon back where we want it to be. All it requires is enough rocket-power by even today's standards.
A quick point about the 20-year replacement plan. In 20 years, we may not even have the same type of cellular network as exists today. Also, I'll quite certain that battery performance will improve in newer models within 20 years to the point that you will definitely want a replacement. A cursory examination of the progress of cellular technology will prove my point. I'm sure you don't use a 4-lb clunker with a battery that only last a few hours.
As a side-point, I'm glad you like your Siemens phone. My Siemens s66 (a variant on the s65) is frankly a disappointment. As a phone, it works well; It is poor taste to promise more than you deliver though, and most of the phone is either poorly implemented or counter-intuitive to me. Perhaps it is designed to German intuition and not American, but I cannot tell.
Your assessment of age for Cell / Computer use seems reasonable, in the general case. I grew up programming, though mostly on a TI calculator (excellent, by the way). Of course I never needed my OWN computer until college, and I always needed computer access since I was a kid. I bought a Cell phone last year for the first time anyone in my family even had a cell phone (well, they had prepaid emergency use ones, but that doesn't count). Cell phones have turned into valuable social networking, since almost everyone has one, and anyone will give you their number for the asking. This last one is a note to think about, since my parents drilled into me to not give away my number. Parents should drill the same about Cell phones, or the future potential for problems is high.
Running games and graphics apps in OpenGL was better and faster than D3D - why? Simple! D3D had to go thru the OS first. OpenGL was direct to hardware.
Vista does not allow direct-to-hardware video control. It is attempting to make everything go through it's own video layer first. I'm not sure it even can have the same type of advantage you say that OpenGL provides. This is truly a design choice, an attempt to make Windows of a different paradigm than say Linux or OSX.
Not that this is inconsistent of Microsoft, or fundamentally 'wrong' per se, but strikes me as an attempt by one child to hog all the toys. They want a unique Windows platform. I personally believe we are past the age where diversity in platforms is inherently beneficial to the consumer.
True. And the Constitution itself is not an absolute authority on the public good. To put the point even finer, the public good may not even be the thing worth upholding. The true foundation lies in the principles of love, as set forth in the Bible.
I am glad to have debated with an intelligent person. On slashdot, this is truly refreshing. Good day to you, sir.
Copyright is only legal so far as it is Constitutional. It is only Constitutional so far as it is beneficial to the public. Please inform me as to how making web-distributed publications illegal to view on the web is beneficial to the public good.
Based on this principle alone, the poster who copied a work verbatim did so for the benefit of the public good. And yet, is it not paradoxical that this very act was illegal?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you mean. Pragmatically speaking, words are only profane if we chose for them to be. I need a better sig anyway. Haven't changed it in years
If I had mod points, you'd get all of them. When I read that passage for the first time myself, I saw that today's society does exactly this with laws.
If coldness is a measure of the absence of heat, or energy, then something which is 100x colder contains 100x less heat/energy. 0.03K contains 100x less energy than 3K, since K is a direct measure of energy content.
Of course it is predicated on the theory that human activity is somehow unnatural. Let us examine the possible consequences of your contention that human activity is perfectly natural. Let's suppose that human activity, in its entirety, is perfectly natural. And yet, humans consider some actions (especially taken against other humans) as evil. This too, is perfectly natural. And the consequences, such as the creation of a justice system to protect society, etc. is perfectly natural as well. I digress. What I mean to say is that if all human activity is perfectly natural, then yes, humans can create, alter, or destroy niches. At the same time, it is perfectly natural for the parent post to criticize human actions that result in the destruction of niches.
And since it is perfectly natural for him to do so, by your statement, why are you opposed to his viewpoint? Actually, it is (consistent with your contention) perfectly natural for you to criticize his view, since all human activity is perfectly natural, just as it is perfectly natural for me to write this post.
I agree. I am one of the people who will raise standards in the industry, after I get my doctorate in Software Engineering, a degree offered by only three universities in the US.
It's going to take a phenomenal amount of work to introduce real standards of software development though.
Two words: Atlas Shrugged
Hm... whining about whining... this could get recursive...
I do agree with you. I liked the review.
I have a router that does that. Provides for up to 40 white-listed URLs, and only those. Dual firewalls, all the latest, even QoS (not that it matters). $100 @ Newegg. D-Link DIR-655.
Does not provide a bounce page, that I'm aware of.
OK, sure. You are paying for a the broadband service/utility that you have no equity in. Much like other consumables such as food or electricity, this is acceptable. But, since broadband is profitable your service provider is making a profit, resulting in expansion, and money flowing back into the economy.
If broadband were not profitable, then the government would take your money and pour it into broadband anyway (so that everyone can get some). It has the same effect as you directly paying for the expansion of broadband. It will have a negative effect on the economy because money is not flowing back into the economy, it is flowing into a pit that returns nothing.
To be fair though, you may be perfectly right in saying there is no difference between broadband and power in terms of profitability. I'm sure the power company must provide power even in situations where it would not be profitable, and by consequence it comes out of our pockets for them to do so. So I apologize, it most certainly is feasible. It's just a trade off of what's good for the economy and what's good for the individual and the "quality of life". Who's to say? It gets political after this point.
Yes, it certainly DOES mean that it is unfeasible. Profitability runs this country. If it is not profitable, then the government pays for it. If the government pays for it, then you pay for it. In summary, you are willing to lose money (no profitability) so that broadband can be delivered to you. Real feasible.
Man, that is one bad pun. I mean, everybody wants green energy, right? You think it coincidence that they used the Spanish word for green (Verde) to describe the power grid???
Alternatively, if anyone has had the opportunity to sing or hear the performance of Verde's Requiem, you may "rest" knowing that in the event of a disaster, the internet will still be working and that power problems can be diagnosed quickly and efficiently.
"These people deserve the verbal beatdowns they get. They are stupid zealots."
There is no such thing as a "stupid zealot". Foolish zealot, perhaps. But calling another person a stupid zealot indicates that you are a zealot for your position. All of us are stupid at some time or other, and (hopefully) all of us are zealots at some time of other. Calling someone a name is an easy way to write them off without considering first just how similar you are to them.
No, No, and... No.
Single hardware compatibility list? Absolutely not! The strength of the PC is MODULARITY and standard INTERFACES. The reason you own a PC now and not a Mac is that PCs allow you to swap components. And, they permit lots of competition by allowing a free market.
What if I wanted to make and sell a hardware-based product? Could I? Just how hard would it be to get my product on that single hardware compatibility list? Hm?
And you didn't mention it, but the logical extension of your concept is a single software compatibility list. If your software isn't on the list, you can't load it. Perhaps I'm reading more into it that you meant, and if so, I apologize. But I'm a software engineer. I make hardware and software products. I do not want my financial success to be at the gracious mercy of Microsoft allowing me to install my product on my target market's computers.
Also, think of the manipulation. What if some commercial interest expressed an opinion that your software/hardware should be banned. Say the RIAA or MPAA? What if the law itself was wrong? [I'm not saying that the law is wrong. But the concept of "the law is always right" is wrong. Otherwise, we would not have a method for removing bad laws].
And we haven't even mentioned the government yet...
Simplicity is a dream. The problem is, simple does not meet the needs of everyone. [Jesus is the exception here]. You cannot make a computer that does meet everyone's needs, yet remains simple for everyone who uses it. Excuse me, there is a way - but the computer would have to interact uniquely to every person. I don't want to be known quite that well by my computer, if you get my drift.
Well sure, My senior design project was to design and build a digital photo frame. It is in essense a mini-itx motherboard running Linux from Scratch and a GTK-based application that I wrote. Our device did not have a screen but plugged up to any computer monitor you wanted to buy, up to 1600x1200 resolution. I'm certain we could have plugged it into the network and transfered files that way. When we started our project 1 1/2 years ago, there was no competition. We couldn't even find anyone who wanted the darn thing. Now the market is flooded.
Listen, if Microsoft wanted to support web developers they would let IE6 and IE7 be installed in parallel on the same OS. Forget the virtual PC business. I'm not even sure Microsoft can because they have so integrated IE into the operating system!
Apologies. I spoke from what I was told, not what I read. Upon reading the Constitution, there is no reference whatsoever to copyright. I am intrigued as to what basis any copyright law has, since they are apparently not on a state-by-state basis as suggested by these two amendments:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You are forgetting one important point, sir. The premise that "Content" = "Media" is, to me, wrong. I buy the content, but that should not allow any restriction on the media. I believe it my right to use the content any way I choose, because I bought it.
Why should I have this right? Because our copyright system is based in the Constitution, and exists solely for the purpose of the public good, and solely for a limited amount of time.
No, imagine this. The universe exists, and everything comes from something. This is utterly incomprehensible, inherently false, yet obviously true. Now, imagine how any possible explaination for the "origin" of all things can exist within the closed system of a Universe that obeys the law of cause and effect.
Sure, have your string theory, multiple parallel universes, 11 dimensions of space, dark matter, dark energy, gravity and relativity. But no theory can ever explain the origin of a closed system, if that theory is contained completely within that closed system. The ignorance of this principle is astounding to one of even my feeble intelligence.
Alright, let me spell it out. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. All that is required to alter the orbit of the moon or the spin of the earth is a proper application of force. Launch enough mass off of the earth and it will move. Directly affecting the angular momentum of a planet may not be particularily easy, as force would have to be applied in such a way that the force would cause a rotation, and not just a push.
As Archimedes (220 B.C.) once said, "Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world". Simple Physics, really. Stick a lever 70 miles long into the earth and stick a rocket on it's end firing perpendicular to the planet. The Earth will move. Its like pushing a merry-go-round.
The act of the moon slowing down the rotation of the earth should not have any effect on the earth's orbit around the sun, unless you are postulating that the rotation of the earth helps maintain its current orbital pattern.
Angular rotation does indeed affect how a body travels (take spin on a baseball, for instance). But only where the angular rotation can exert a force (on air, for instance). Also, are you accounting for the Einsteinian theory that the earth rotates around the sun because the warped geometry of space due to gravity, much like a ball on giant rubber sheet?
In summary, I doubt that the spin of the earth has any effect on its orbital path, and even if does, the loss of rotation would shorten the average year, because the earth would move closer to the sun in the absense of this rotation. (The rotational effect, if any, is a force directed normal to the pull of gravity).
A few billion years? Why should they care?
It was projected that in a matter of millions of years, the moon will cause the earth to stop rotating altogether. Without rotation, do you seriously think we will inhabit this planet?
For that matter, in a matter of millions of years, we should have developed a technology for making the earth rotate as fast as we wish, and moving the moon back where we want it to be. All it requires is enough rocket-power by even today's standards.
A quick point about the 20-year replacement plan. In 20 years, we may not even have the same type of cellular network as exists today. Also, I'll quite certain that battery performance will improve in newer models within 20 years to the point that you will definitely want a replacement. A cursory examination of the progress of cellular technology will prove my point. I'm sure you don't use a 4-lb clunker with a battery that only last a few hours.
As a side-point, I'm glad you like your Siemens phone. My Siemens s66 (a variant on the s65) is frankly a disappointment. As a phone, it works well; It is poor taste to promise more than you deliver though, and most of the phone is either poorly implemented or counter-intuitive to me. Perhaps it is designed to German intuition and not American, but I cannot tell.
Your assessment of age for Cell / Computer use seems reasonable, in the general case. I grew up programming, though mostly on a TI calculator (excellent, by the way). Of course I never needed my OWN computer until college, and I always needed computer access since I was a kid. I bought a Cell phone last year for the first time anyone in my family even had a cell phone (well, they had prepaid emergency use ones, but that doesn't count). Cell phones have turned into valuable social networking, since almost everyone has one, and anyone will give you their number for the asking. This last one is a note to think about, since my parents drilled into me to not give away my number. Parents should drill the same about Cell phones, or the future potential for problems is high.
Running games and graphics apps in OpenGL was better and faster than D3D - why? Simple! D3D had to go thru the OS first. OpenGL was direct to hardware.
Vista does not allow direct-to-hardware video control. It is attempting to make everything go through it's own video layer first. I'm not sure it even can have the same type of advantage you say that OpenGL provides. This is truly a design choice, an attempt to make Windows of a different paradigm than say Linux or OSX.
Not that this is inconsistent of Microsoft, or fundamentally 'wrong' per se, but strikes me as an attempt by one child to hog all the toys. They want a unique Windows platform. I personally believe we are past the age where diversity in platforms is inherently beneficial to the consumer.
True. And the Constitution itself is not an absolute authority on the public good. To put the point even finer, the public good may not even be the thing worth upholding. The true foundation lies in the principles of love, as set forth in the Bible.
I am glad to have debated with an intelligent person. On slashdot, this is truly refreshing. Good day to you, sir.
Copyright is only legal so far as it is Constitutional. It is only Constitutional so far as it is beneficial to the public. Please inform me as to how making web-distributed publications illegal to view on the web is beneficial to the public good.
Based on this principle alone, the poster who copied a work verbatim did so for the benefit of the public good. And yet, is it not paradoxical that this very act was illegal?