In the original story, I asked a question about Brain Drain which brought up some of the underling causes that must be addressed in order to reach solutions, as opposed to donations. I imagine your insight will also be ignored.
The article makes no comparison of the 'Colbert' bump to any other bumps. Normally this would be funny if it was reported on his own show because he's funny as he over exaggerates everything, but in reality every show has its own demographic bump. Every time a new movie comes out, the star(s) will make the rounds on all the tv/radio talk shows in order to promote it, and the same goes for politicians looking to get their message out in hope of getting votes and contributions.
Science is not alone as an area of expertise where most people have trouble discerning fact from fiction. And an extra science class in school isn't going to do the trick. People need a solid foundation for thinking and reasoning.
Objectivism
is a great introduction to the philosophy of rational thought. I recommend Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (a story about an architect that refuses to compromise his work or his life) as a great place to start.
I am not a physicist, so feel free to flame me if my question is stupid. But the article mentions a design concept that would hook multiple devices up in a sequence or series, in order to continuously move a temperature in either direction. This concept would make sense if the principle of the phenomenon is based upon a relative temperature range, instead of an absolute range. But if that was true, that this phenomenon could alter an oven at 330 up to 350, or a refrigerator at 50 down to 30 freezing, and I can't imagine it being efficient without it also being magic. So, is it based upon a relative range of temperature, or an absolute one?
Answering your question requires understanding of 'The Small Picture', which can only be understood in relation to 'The Big Picture'.
The Big Picture:
The idea of copyright is a societal agreement with creators, as a fair method to pay them for contributing to society. Over time, our environment has changed, and the old copyright paradigm is an ill fit for today, and so great is the ill-fitting-ness that a large section of society chooses to ignore it to some extent. Until such a day that we as a society create a new copyright paradigm, that most of us will agree to honor, then we will have lots of legal battles.
The Small Picture:
In a legal battle, the simple footsoldier known as a lawyer is not necessarily motivated to make the world a better place, but is motivated to defend his client, be they innocent or guilty. With success defined in such a way, a lawyer may sacrifice less valued big ideals, in order to achieve higher valued small wins.
Your Answer:
A lawyer may take laws and legal rules to their extremes, like a competitive athlete may take their training to extremes, but at those extremes are gray areas. Gray areas like the difference between supplements and steroids, or plausible deniability like claiming the guy injecting you said "it was just an all-natural supplement" so how could you have known. In this case, the "Innocent Infringement" idea is being stretched, and twisted, in hopes that it might just work well enough to help his client.
The thing with copyright is that it's only a "infringement" if the item is indeed under copyright and it's labelled as such.
The 'Notice of Copyright' requirement was eliminated in 1989. (sarcasm on) I guess you weren't ignorant of this fact, but simply innocent of it. (sarcasm off)
Innocent Infringement is an exception made for people that deal with media, like schools, libraries, radio, and tv. If someone acts in accordance with the law, every day, then we aren't going to consider them a criminal because of a single accident. Someone doing nothing but copyright infringement, doesn't qualify under the innocent infringement exception, but is instead ignorant of the law. Whether copyright law is just, or needs updating for the 21st century is another matter.
While/. management might encourage/. editors to troll in order to drive page views and profits, I imagine there are a number of people out there, that one day woke up and realized 'the Google has you Neo'. Not that Google is the only bad guy, or that they must be demonized. But each person or company needs at some point to take some responsibility for themselves. Asking/. readers for a little advice seems reasonable.
Why buy the milk and eggs bundled, when you can easily feed the chickens yourself, thus making the bundle price, overpriced, when compared to the cost of milking the cows yourself.
When someone says "We should get together" or "We should keep in touch", what they really mean is "I don't really care, but I don't want to sound like an asshole".
When someone on Slashdot says "Ah fuck it. Let's burn some karma", what they really mean is "I'm a karma whore with a big brown nose, give me some luv fellow groupthinkers".
Yes, literacy is a tool. But since language, reading and the written word have been influential throughout history, and the vast proliferation of literacy and knowledge (gutenberg, anyone?) was in part responsible for the development of civilization as we know it...
then literacy is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing.
This is your first point, and from there you make conclusions in your post based upon this assumption. But your assumption is false, which
explains why your conclusions are also false. I will explain: (as this isn't a personal attack on you)
Literacy is not a prime mover of civilization, Freedom is.
When you try to add literacy and education into a developing countries, where there is no Freedom, then you don't get progress, you get a
Brain Drain.
A Brain Drain only further hinders progress, as the best minds are driven away, instead of solving their own countries problems.
As I said in my original post, tools are force multipliers. So if you have Freedom, then tools will enhance that Freedom, but if you have
tyranny, then those very same tools will enhance that tyranny.
Literacy is a tool used to accomplish things, and like any other tool (car, gun, intelligence) they are power multipliers. Most societies grow at a slow enough rate that allows them to learn how to cope and deal with the negative side of the tools they use (like computers unintentionally give us cybercrimes, which we respond to with cybercrime fighters and cybercrime fighting tools).
I can think of nothing more cruel than a group that would enjoy playing Superman or God, and prematurely introduce tools that will severely imbalance developing cultures. We all know what financing the Janjaweed has accomplished. (money + horse + gun = destabilized power grab) Literacy is NOT good, anymore than a gun is good, both can be 'used' to do good or bad. Developing cultures don't NEED a $5 iPod, they need to develop at their own pace without those with good-intentions paving the way.
FTV - "Imagine a $5 iPod, used to play locally created podcasts."
One of the advertised features is Device-to-Device copy (which my multihundred dollar iPod can't do) is sure to run into legal problems, thus raising the target price even higher. To be fair, he did admit they cost more than $5 during his presentation.
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum,
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
- Augustus de Morgan, A Budget of Paradoxes
While I haven't heard of a virus hijacking another virus, I have heard of researchers hijacking viruses to do good things.
"Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses." -
Rainforest Schmainforest
and now forests are rotting and giving off greenhouse gases. We must act to stop these forests from further encroaching upon our Earth-friendly deserts, it is time we cleaned them up.
Some of us enjoy a polite debate on other issues, even if your viewpoint is totally maddening to me:-P I have some gay/lesbian coworkers/friends, some of them have families (with children), so to me the viewpoint you take on marriage is completely counter-intuitive and frustrating.
My views on homosexual marriage (which appear to match yours) should be irrelevant to the discussion of the subject. I'm stating the proper way to change society is 'within' democracy by education, proposals, and voting; instead of subverting democracy by redefining & ignoring laws. As you say 'maddening' indeed, I even placed a disclaimer in my original post to warn people not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but apparently homosexuality evokes a great deal of feelings for some people, which is a shame because it only serves to hinder progress of their cause.
I'm sorry if my response appeared condescending, but let's not lose sight of the topic. In order to support Patry's claim of attacks upon
fair-use protections, I connected the method to a breakdown in the litigious nature of our current society. And in order to provide an understanding of that connection, I provided 3 examples of current events in dispute.
If someone has a personal or religious objection to one of the examples provided, then I would hope the remaining 2 examples would help them to understand the principle. The principle is that laws should be changed by education, proposals, & voting (proper methods) as opposed to redefining & ignoring laws (inproper methods).
Slashdot Mirror
In the original story, I asked a question about Brain Drain which brought up some of the underling causes that must be addressed in order to reach solutions, as opposed to donations. I imagine your insight will also be ignored.
I like to think that technologically minded folks choose to work smarter, not harder.
The article makes no comparison of the 'Colbert' bump to any other bumps. Normally this would be funny if it was reported on his own show because he's funny as he over exaggerates everything, but in reality every show has its own demographic bump. Every time a new movie comes out, the star(s) will make the rounds on all the tv/radio talk shows in order to promote it, and the same goes for politicians looking to get their message out in hope of getting votes and contributions.
Science is not alone as an area of expertise where most people have trouble discerning fact from fiction. And an extra science class in school isn't going to do the trick. People need a solid foundation for thinking and reasoning. Objectivism is a great introduction to the philosophy of rational thought. I recommend Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (a story about an architect that refuses to compromise his work or his life) as a great place to start.
I am not a physicist, so feel free to flame me if my question is stupid. But the article mentions a design concept that would hook multiple devices up in a sequence or series, in order to continuously move a temperature in either direction. This concept would make sense if the principle of the phenomenon is based upon a relative temperature range, instead of an absolute range. But if that was true, that this phenomenon could alter an oven at 330 up to 350, or a refrigerator at 50 down to 30 freezing, and I can't imagine it being efficient without it also being magic. So, is it based upon a relative range of temperature, or an absolute one?
I suppose if I had a picture of someone's login and password, I might be able to deftly hack into their computer.
Answering your question requires understanding of 'The Small Picture', which can only be understood in relation to 'The Big Picture'.
The Big Picture:
The idea of copyright is a societal agreement with creators, as a fair method to pay them for contributing to society. Over time, our environment has changed, and the old copyright paradigm is an ill fit for today, and so great is the ill-fitting-ness that a large section of society chooses to ignore it to some extent. Until such a day that we as a society create a new copyright paradigm, that most of us will agree to honor, then we will have lots of legal battles.
The Small Picture:
In a legal battle, the simple footsoldier known as a lawyer is not necessarily motivated to make the world a better place, but is motivated to defend his client, be they innocent or guilty. With success defined in such a way, a lawyer may sacrifice less valued big ideals, in order to achieve higher valued small wins.
Your Answer:
A lawyer may take laws and legal rules to their extremes, like a competitive athlete may take their training to extremes, but at those extremes are gray areas. Gray areas like the difference between supplements and steroids, or plausible deniability like claiming the guy injecting you said "it was just an all-natural supplement" so how could you have known. In this case, the "Innocent Infringement" idea is being stretched, and twisted, in hopes that it might just work well enough to help his client.
The thing with copyright is that it's only a "infringement" if the item is indeed under copyright and it's labelled as such.
The 'Notice of Copyright' requirement was eliminated in 1989. (sarcasm on) I guess you weren't ignorant of this fact, but simply innocent of it. (sarcasm off)
Innocent Infringement is an exception made for people that deal with media, like schools, libraries, radio, and tv. If someone acts in accordance with the law, every day, then we aren't going to consider them a criminal because of a single accident. Someone doing nothing but copyright infringement, doesn't qualify under the innocent infringement exception, but is instead ignorant of the law. Whether copyright law is just, or needs updating for the 21st century is another matter.
While /. management might encourage /. editors to troll in order to drive page views and profits, I imagine there are a number of people out there, that one day woke up and realized 'the Google has you Neo'. Not that Google is the only bad guy, or that they must be demonized. But each person or company needs at some point to take some responsibility for themselves. Asking /. readers for a little advice seems reasonable.
Why buy the milk and eggs bundled, when you can easily feed the chickens yourself, thus making the bundle price, overpriced, when compared to the cost of milking the cows yourself.
After looking at the very colorful map, you might have an idea... Risk: the Arctic Edition.
...does involve 'securing' data, just not in the way you think it does.
Media Sentry is a joke. They will soon be hacked out of existance.
I went to the Slashdot gathering, and all I got was this OMG Pwnies t-shirt
When someone says "We should get together" or "We should keep in touch", what they really mean is "I don't really care, but I don't want to sound like an asshole".
When someone on Slashdot says "Ah fuck it. Let's burn some karma", what they really mean is "I'm a karma whore with a big brown nose, give me some luv fellow groupthinkers".
Yes, literacy is a tool. But since language, reading and the written word have been influential throughout history, and the vast proliferation of literacy and knowledge (gutenberg, anyone?) was in part responsible for the development of civilization as we know it ...
then literacy is probably more of a good thing than a bad thing.
This is your first point, and from there you make conclusions in your post based upon this assumption. But your assumption is false, which explains why your conclusions are also false. I will explain: (as this isn't a personal attack on you)
As I said in my original post, tools are force multipliers. So if you have Freedom, then tools will enhance that Freedom, but if you have tyranny, then those very same tools will enhance that tyranny.
Literacy is a tool used to accomplish things, and like any other tool (car, gun, intelligence) they are power multipliers. Most societies grow at a slow enough rate that allows them to learn how to cope and deal with the negative side of the tools they use (like computers unintentionally give us cybercrimes, which we respond to with cybercrime fighters and cybercrime fighting tools).
I can think of nothing more cruel than a group that would enjoy playing Superman or God, and prematurely introduce tools that will severely imbalance developing cultures. We all know what financing the Janjaweed has accomplished. (money + horse + gun = destabilized power grab) Literacy is NOT good, anymore than a gun is good, both can be 'used' to do good or bad. Developing cultures don't NEED a $5 iPod, they need to develop at their own pace without those with good-intentions paving the way.
FTV - "Imagine a $5 iPod, used to play locally created podcasts."
One of the advertised features is Device-to-Device copy (which my multihundred dollar iPod can't do) is sure to run into legal problems, thus raising the target price even higher. To be fair, he did admit they cost more than $5 during his presentation.
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum,
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
- Augustus de Morgan, A Budget of Paradoxes
While I haven't heard of a virus hijacking another virus, I have heard of researchers hijacking viruses to do good things.
"Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses." - Rainforest Schmainforest and now forests are rotting and giving off greenhouse gases. We must act to stop these forests from further encroaching upon our Earth-friendly deserts, it is time we cleaned them up.
Some of us enjoy a polite debate on other issues, even if your viewpoint is totally maddening to me :-P I have some gay/lesbian coworkers/friends, some of them have families (with children), so to me the viewpoint you take on marriage is completely counter-intuitive and frustrating.
My views on homosexual marriage (which appear to match yours) should be irrelevant to the discussion of the subject. I'm stating the proper way to change society is 'within' democracy by education, proposals, and voting; instead of subverting democracy by redefining & ignoring laws. As you say 'maddening' indeed, I even placed a disclaimer in my original post to warn people not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but apparently homosexuality evokes a great deal of feelings for some people, which is a shame because it only serves to hinder progress of their cause.
I'm sorry if my response appeared condescending, but let's not lose sight of the topic. In order to support Patry's claim of attacks upon fair-use protections, I connected the method to a breakdown in the litigious nature of our current society. And in order to provide an understanding of that connection, I provided 3 examples of current events in dispute.
If someone has a personal or religious objection to one of the examples provided, then I would hope the remaining 2 examples would help them to understand the principle. The principle is that laws should be changed by education, proposals, & voting (proper methods) as opposed to redefining & ignoring laws (inproper methods).