Technically, child porn is based off christian sexual taboos.
Granted, I've never seen a society where that kind of thing was normal, but imagine how utterly obscene western women must seem to fundamentalist muslims.
Because of the time required to charge vehicles, we'd need a cord station at pretty much every parking space everywhere for widespread use of pure electrics to be tenable. (even if we implemented amazing recharge rates through capacitors, we wouldn't be able to utilize them because, without a completely separate, ultra-capacity utility network, the grid would overload)
How expensive is this per capita vs a carbon trapping device from the government for everyone and a massive fuel subsidy program?
In the long term they're financially better off rolling out a complete rebuild of the power grid to support "burst charging" of ultra-capacitors so cars can be charged in a couple minutes at "stations", the same way we do now with gas.
Sure things are possible, but I want to see these processes modeled and demonstrated on Earth before we launch anyone to Mars.
there are some projects so large that you can't test them with a scale model.
You can test the components and make calculations, but in order to see if it really works, you need to try it out.
The failure of this proto-colony to gain self-sufficiency is not a reason to abandon the effort either. Adapt and correct whichever aspects are going wrong.
Most of the roads built through the alaskan wilderness involved this process of educated guesses and corrections to aspects which go wrong. The government and various companies wanted them fast, and applied their ingenuity to get what they wanted.
If you want certainty stay in a comfortable, developed center of civilization, but everything worth doing has involved calculated risk, commitment of whatever time and resources were necessary, and adaption.
In an unregulated market fractional reserve lending should be prosecuted as fraud. It is fractional reserve lending that is the root cause of the collapse in the money supply.
No, re-read my post. It was pure greed and financial malfeasance which led to the "collapse" of the credit markets. (it's not a collapse either because the federal reserve still lends to financial institutions. Government interference prevents the economy from utterly collapsing in situations like this)
This is entirely due to government regulation.
"Regulation" is, fundamentally, government compelling a sector of private commerce to behave a specific way. The presence of the Fed does not compel a bank to engage in fractional reserve lending, in this case it merely allows it.
The banking industry has been structured upon fractional reserve lending since it arose. They don't make profits by simply holding the deposited assets. They loan out a fraction of what their patrons deposit to earn profits through interest. An (arguably beneficial) side effect of this is the "money multiplier" effect that makes the world go round. (It is arguable that the industrial revolution and our modern, technological age would not have arisen in the absence of this economic force.)
Fiat money precludes the possibility of a free market and even with an ostensibly gold backed currency is in reality a fiat currency if the government allows fractional reserve lending.
Given that you agree that fractional reserve lending and the money multiplier effect mean that even gold based currency is equivalent to fiat money, then, given the history of banking, your assertion that fiat money precludes the possibility of a free market is refuted by centuries upon centuries of commerce.
In light of this, your whole rant here strikes me as incoherent.
There is some real irony here in your post.
If you believe fractional reserve lending is, in fact, fraud, then what you are advocating is...drumroll please.... a regulation prohibiting that practice.
In fact, the federal reserve system imposes a minimum required reserve on bank systems, which artificially decreases the quantity of money "fraudulently produced" through fractional reserve lending.
They used to take much greater risks in their lending because the first rule of the free market is profit. This resulted in a lot of people losing their savings when banks lost all their liquid assets in loan defaults during the depression.
This whole mess is a failure of socialist banking policy NOT capitalism or free market ideas. The banking system in America is NOT free market and has not been free market since 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act).
What the hell are you talking about?
Don't blame the CRA, it only prohibited red-lining (denying a loan based on geographic area rather than individual credit rating), and only applied to banks, not independent mortgage companies.
Don't blame Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac either. They weren't the ones making the loans.
The government didn't force these independent mortgage firms to push sub-prime loans, along with predatory rate structures, at high credit risks, nor did anybody force private investment firms to snatch up securitized mortgage bundles made from them.
Ironically, it was the repeal of the section of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed in response to the depression) which strictly separated banks from securities firms (to help assure the stability of banks) which exacerbated this mess and resulted in such massive failures.
TLDR version: Deregulation under the notion the "free market" and "competition" would result produce stability allowed financial officers to engage in horrendous risks (pursuing increased revenue like any company should).
The federal reserve and FDIC are the unsung saving grace of this crisis. Without the guarantees on deposits, main street would have long ago run the banks, resulting in economic devastation which would have made the depression look like a quiet, happy picnic.
"Fox guarding the hen house"... Like Anarchy? Or Government regulation? Both are remarkable for their efficiency infringing people's freedoms and rights.
The point of government regulation is to play corporations, who are equally rapacious to people's freedoms and rights, against the government.
Corporations don't benefit from government getting too big and taking over their markets. Government recognizes that risky and anti-consumer behavior by corporations may destroy the economy or incite revolution.
A balance of power between the two using smart regulations (as opposed to the often presented "more" or "none") is the way to go.
In france a fusion reactor is under construction which is supposed to produce 10 times the energy it consumes (the current cutting edge is 1:1 ratio).
I'm sure there's heavy water among the trapped molecules on mars, but I'll concede this is still bleeding edge research and not guaranteed, so I'd actually suggest helix wind turbines with blades covered in photovoltaic cells. There are winds on mars, ranging from light breezes to hurricane force. This turbine structure can produce power at very low speeds, does not take damage from turbulent or swift air currents, and has few moving parts to fail in an extreme environment.
I'd prefer to grow bamboo over wood. It's much more weed-like.
The red of the martian soil comes from what metal again?
Plastics have been synthesized from corn (ford made a concept car using corn based "renewable plastic")
in order for a mars colony to function properly in terms fulfilling its purpose scientifically, commercially, and from a "species insurance" standpoint, it will have to be self sufficient.
Otherwise, as populations expand with the development of various agendas, shipments of supplies will become unreasonably expensive. (I'm tempted to say impossible, but severely unfeasible is a better term for it).
Certainly the construction of agricultural facilities will be expensive, but in the long term the fuel required to accelerate commercial vessels loaded with supplies on the return trip would be even more so.
The tech to "live off the land" on mars is in its infancy right now, but still feasibly scalable. Mars, unlike the moon, has a considerable amount of water. If they can extract water from moon dust (i've seen the demos), obtaining water on mars should be no issue at all.
A few chemicals to assure the proper PH of the soil and water, add some cellular enclosures, and you have arable land and plants which will help scrub the CO2 out of the air.
Establishing and growing a colony to the point of self sufficiency exponentially increases the durability of our species as a whole, as well as increasing our pool of resources and livable space.
With a colony on mars, we don't have to worry so much about a space rock crashing to earth and causing human extinction.
While we're on this premise, calculations show that even if humanity survives such an event, the utterly massive EMP from the impact would wipe out even the most shielded systems. Off-site backups of the most important pieces of human knowledge anyone?
I'm no nuclear physicist... but I know that one of the reasons anything nuclear is usually shied away from in space is because if the rocket carrying it up there blows up on the pad / on its way up... you've basically just detonated a dirty bomb.
If you apply the same protection to the payload container(s) that the military does to missile warheads, this should not be an issue.
This has precedent. The challenger had a crew compartment which survived in tact. It simply didn't properly protect against shocks capable of killing a human. I doubt plutonium rods have necks which can be broken.
The internet would be accessible there with a 3 minute lag.
This means FPS and MMOs would be out of the question, but flash games, forums, and various other turn based options are still quite viable, as would downloading music and movies. Let the MAFIAA reach you there!
I question the efficacy of hab units being connectable.
I just don't think, in practice, that we can accurately land them within a tenable proximity.
practically everything we've landed on another planetary body, dating back to and including the moon landing, has been thousands of yards off the intended mark.
Do you consider it feasible to carry, install, and maintain connecting corridors which are kilometers long?
No, I really hate it because it's used in conjunction with the DMCA to usurp the will of congress and the people, engaging in private regulation of much larger and unrelated portions of the economy.
When it's illegal to independently engineer your own compliance to a spec whenever it has the term "copy protected" added to it, this means everyone is forced into the EULA of a specific perpetuator (the MAFIAA licensed one), which can then dictate everything from the design of the product to the number of kids each employee of the licensing firm is allowed to have.
I don't think i've ever heard this argument made to the USSC, but it's a serious constitutional breach when private companies are allowed to engage in unilateral legislative edicts.
Surely each of the 3 commenters, who all phrase "if you can't copy yo shit, howzit invisible?" are intelligent to understand the guy clearly meant it's invisible during normal, fair use. Jesus Christ.
Shifting it to another format is considered fair use.
Since DRM is irrevocably tied to specific formats, this prevents fair use.
The reason true "cross platform" drm will never exist is because the MAFIAA bargained with the major electronics/software incumbents not to stop the DMCA cold with promises it will open a huge loophole in anti-trust law, allowing them to form stupidly profitable monopolies.
The moment true cross-platform DRM emerges, consumer electronics companies will be stuck with nothing more than an extra cost which burdens their customers. Their benefit from the DMCA goes byebye.. (and maybe the law itself?)
4. It can not restrict my ability to sample it for remix, critique, and parody, and legally redistribute those chunks under their respective fair use exceptions (through court precedent or codified law).
5. It can not restrict my ability to otherwise edit it for personal use.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically, child porn is based off christian sexual taboos.
Granted, I've never seen a society where that kind of thing was normal, but imagine how utterly obscene western women must seem to fundamentalist muslims.
Because of the time required to charge vehicles, we'd need a cord station at pretty much every parking space everywhere for widespread use of pure electrics to be tenable.
(even if we implemented amazing recharge rates through capacitors, we wouldn't be able to utilize them because, without a completely separate, ultra-capacity utility network, the grid would overload)
How expensive is this per capita vs a carbon trapping device from the government for everyone and a massive fuel subsidy program?
In the long term they're financially better off rolling out a complete rebuild of the power grid to support "burst charging" of ultra-capacitors so cars can be charged in a couple minutes at "stations", the same way we do now with gas.
Sure things are possible, but I want to see these processes modeled and demonstrated on Earth before we launch anyone to Mars.
there are some projects so large that you can't test them with a scale model.
You can test the components and make calculations, but in order to see if it really works, you need to try it out.
The failure of this proto-colony to gain self-sufficiency is not a reason to abandon the effort either. Adapt and correct whichever aspects are going wrong.
Most of the roads built through the alaskan wilderness involved this process of educated guesses and corrections to aspects which go wrong. The government and various companies wanted them fast, and applied their ingenuity to get what they wanted.
If you want certainty stay in a comfortable, developed center of civilization, but everything worth doing has involved calculated risk, commitment of whatever time and resources were necessary, and adaption.
In an unregulated market fractional reserve lending should be prosecuted as fraud. It is fractional reserve lending that is the root cause of the collapse in the money supply.
No, re-read my post. It was pure greed and financial malfeasance which led to the "collapse" of the credit markets. (it's not a collapse either because the federal reserve still lends to financial institutions. Government interference prevents the economy from utterly collapsing in situations like this)
This is entirely due to government regulation.
"Regulation" is, fundamentally, government compelling a sector of private commerce to behave a specific way. The presence of the Fed does not compel a bank to engage in fractional reserve lending, in this case it merely allows it.
The banking industry has been structured upon fractional reserve lending since it arose. They don't make profits by simply holding the deposited assets. They loan out a fraction of what their patrons deposit to earn profits through interest. An (arguably beneficial) side effect of this is the "money multiplier" effect that makes the world go round. (It is arguable that the industrial revolution and our modern, technological age would not have arisen in the absence of this economic force.)
Fiat money precludes the possibility of a free market and even with an ostensibly gold backed currency is in reality a fiat currency if the government allows fractional reserve lending.
Given that you agree that fractional reserve lending and the money multiplier effect mean that even gold based currency is equivalent to fiat money, then, given the history of banking, your assertion that fiat money precludes the possibility of a free market is refuted by centuries upon centuries of commerce.
In light of this, your whole rant here strikes me as incoherent.
There is some real irony here in your post.
If you believe fractional reserve lending is, in fact, fraud, then what you are advocating is...drumroll please.... a regulation prohibiting that practice.
In fact, the federal reserve system imposes a minimum required reserve on bank systems, which artificially decreases the quantity of money "fraudulently produced" through fractional reserve lending.
They used to take much greater risks in their lending because the first rule of the free market is profit. This resulted in a lot of people losing their savings when banks lost all their liquid assets in loan defaults during the depression.
This whole mess is a failure of socialist banking policy NOT capitalism or free market ideas. The banking system in America is NOT free market and has not been free market since 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act).
What the hell are you talking about?
Don't blame the CRA, it only prohibited red-lining (denying a loan based on geographic area rather than individual credit rating), and only applied to banks, not independent mortgage companies.
Don't blame Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac either. They weren't the ones making the loans.
The government didn't force these independent mortgage firms to push sub-prime loans, along with predatory rate structures, at high credit risks, nor did anybody force private investment firms to snatch up securitized mortgage bundles made from them.
Nobody forced the financial institutions to horribly over-leverage their assets on incomprehensibly complex securities
Ironically, it was the repeal of the section of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed in response to the depression) which strictly separated banks from securities firms (to help assure the stability of banks) which exacerbated this mess and resulted in such massive failures.
TLDR version:
Deregulation under the notion the "free market" and "competition" would result produce stability allowed financial officers to engage in horrendous risks (pursuing increased revenue like any company should).
The federal reserve and FDIC are the unsung saving grace of this crisis. Without the guarantees on deposits, main street would have long ago run the banks, resulting in economic devastation which would have made the depression look like a quiet, happy picnic.
"Fox guarding the hen house"... Like Anarchy? Or Government regulation? Both are remarkable for their efficiency infringing people's freedoms and rights.
The point of government regulation is to play corporations, who are equally rapacious to people's freedoms and rights, against the government.
Corporations don't benefit from government getting too big and taking over their markets. Government recognizes that risky and anti-consumer behavior by corporations may destroy the economy or incite revolution.
A balance of power between the two using smart regulations (as opposed to the often presented "more" or "none") is the way to go.
In france a fusion reactor is under construction which is supposed to produce 10 times the energy it consumes (the current cutting edge is 1:1 ratio).
I'm sure there's heavy water among the trapped molecules on mars, but I'll concede this is still bleeding edge research and not guaranteed, so I'd actually suggest helix wind turbines with blades covered in photovoltaic cells.
There are winds on mars, ranging from light breezes to hurricane force. This turbine structure can produce power at very low speeds, does not take damage from turbulent or swift air currents, and has few moving parts to fail in an extreme environment.
I'd prefer to grow bamboo over wood. It's much more weed-like.
The red of the martian soil comes from what metal again?
Plastics have been synthesized from corn (ford made a concept car using corn based "renewable plastic")
in order for a mars colony to function properly in terms fulfilling its purpose scientifically, commercially, and from a "species insurance" standpoint, it will have to be self sufficient.
Otherwise, as populations expand with the development of various agendas, shipments of supplies will become unreasonably expensive. (I'm tempted to say impossible, but severely unfeasible is a better term for it).
Certainly the construction of agricultural facilities will be expensive, but in the long term the fuel required to accelerate commercial vessels loaded with supplies on the return trip would be even more so.
The tech to "live off the land" on mars is in its infancy right now, but still feasibly scalable. Mars, unlike the moon, has a considerable amount of water. If they can extract water from moon dust (i've seen the demos), obtaining water on mars should be no issue at all.
A few chemicals to assure the proper PH of the soil and water, add some cellular enclosures, and you have arable land and plants which will help scrub the CO2 out of the air.
etc. etc.
It is not pointless to colonize mars.
Establishing and growing a colony to the point of self sufficiency exponentially increases the durability of our species as a whole, as well as increasing our pool of resources and livable space.
With a colony on mars, we don't have to worry so much about a space rock crashing to earth and causing human extinction.
While we're on this premise, calculations show that even if humanity survives such an event, the utterly massive EMP from the impact would wipe out even the most shielded systems. Off-site backups of the most important pieces of human knowledge anyone?
The initial ship which goes there should also be large enough and carry the proper infrastructure to remain in orbit as a permanent space station.
I'm no nuclear physicist... but I know that one of the reasons anything nuclear is usually shied away from in space is because if the rocket carrying it up there blows up on the pad / on its way up... you've basically just detonated a dirty bomb.
If you apply the same protection to the payload container(s) that the military does to missile warheads, this should not be an issue.
This has precedent. The challenger had a crew compartment which survived in tact. It simply didn't properly protect against shocks capable of killing a human. I doubt plutonium rods have necks which can be broken.
TCP/IP timeout is only about 1.5min for SYN packets.
then we'll have to implement interplanetary nodes which bridge between TCP/IP and algorithms optimized for longer distances wont they?
Recent experiments in relation to a lunar base managed to produce water and oxygen from lunar soil using some heat.
A nuclear reactor would be sufficient.
Mars has direct and indirect evidence of considerable water reserves.
Water can be separated through electrolysis into oxygen and hydrogen, or purified and consumed.
I remember hearing that proposed lunar bases would shield themselves from cosmic rays by burying the modules in a thick coating of lunar soil.
The same could be done with anything sent to mars.
The internet would be accessible there with a 3 minute lag.
This means FPS and MMOs would be out of the question, but flash games, forums, and various other turn based options are still quite viable, as would downloading music and movies. Let the MAFIAA reach you there!
I question the efficacy of hab units being connectable.
I just don't think, in practice, that we can accurately land them within a tenable proximity.
practically everything we've landed on another planetary body, dating back to and including the moon landing, has been thousands of yards off the intended mark.
Do you consider it feasible to carry, install, and maintain connecting corridors which are kilometers long?
Then Oreilly should be an excellent start..
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP
Does this mean I can pay my mountainous student debts with good will?
pretty please?
You can, but only if you have the key. Which was my whole point - the impossible part (for DRM) is guarding the key.
fixed that for you, especially in the case of OSS drm, where it can't be obfuscated through pre-compiled binary.
char* getData( ... ) {
char* encryptedData = getDataFromSomewhere();
char* key = getKeyFromSomewhere();
writekeytoplaintext(key, key.txt);
if( key == NULL ) {
return NULL;
}
hack complete.
No, I really hate it because it's used in conjunction with the DMCA to usurp the will of congress and the people, engaging in private regulation of much larger and unrelated portions of the economy.
When it's illegal to independently engineer your own compliance to a spec whenever it has the term "copy protected" added to it, this means everyone is forced into the EULA of a specific perpetuator (the MAFIAA licensed one), which can then dictate everything from the design of the product to the number of kids each employee of the licensing firm is allowed to have.
I don't think i've ever heard this argument made to the USSC, but it's a serious constitutional breach when private companies are allowed to engage in unilateral legislative edicts.
Surely each of the 3 commenters, who all phrase "if you can't copy yo shit, howzit invisible?" are intelligent to understand the guy clearly meant it's invisible during normal, fair use. Jesus Christ.
Shifting it to another format is considered fair use.
Since DRM is irrevocably tied to specific formats, this prevents fair use.
The reason true "cross platform" drm will never exist is because the MAFIAA bargained with the major electronics/software incumbents not to stop the DMCA cold with promises it will open a huge loophole in anti-trust law, allowing them to form stupidly profitable monopolies.
The moment true cross-platform DRM emerges, consumer electronics companies will be stuck with nothing more than an extra cost which burdens their customers. Their benefit from the DMCA goes byebye.. (and maybe the law itself?)
4. It can not restrict my ability to sample it for remix, critique, and parody, and legally redistribute those chunks under their respective fair use exceptions (through court precedent or codified law).
5. It can not restrict my ability to otherwise edit it for personal use.
Now it's really impossible.
It will become visible as soon as Bob wants legitimately to copy the same song in his car player, his two desktops and his laptop...
or his ipod, which will be as supportive of this technology as it was for microsoft's "plays4sure"