No, no it doesn't. Your/etc/passwd file isn't actually encrypted. You can copy the file no problem. But the passwords in it ARE encrypted. In order to view them, you need to decrypt them first.
Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it. However, you'd need some pretty specialized equipment for that. The only other way to copy a DVD is to decrypt it first. Technically, even to WATCH a DVD, you have to decrypt it first. Your DVD player does all the decryption without you being aware of it, but it DOES decrypt the movie.
So, theoretically, if I charge you $20 to come over and install for you the Windows CD which you've already bought, I'm breaking the law? Because that's exactly what you're saying. I'm making money by copying content from one media to another.
Not positioned? Who, exactly, is in a better position to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel? The god-damn Girl Scouts?
The oil industry isn't just going to roll over and die. Unless we actually come up with REAL high-capacity batteries, you can bet your ass that 100 years down the road, Shell and Texaco will still be providing fuel for whatever kind of car you're driving at that point.
So now you're saying that they CAN think in the long term? Funny, because the last time I argued that it made no sense for them to base their entire business model on a resource which might run out in their lifetime, a guy like you just blamed that on Oil companies inability to think long-term.
Let me break it down for you:
If peak oil IS coming, the only thing that makes sense is for the oil companies to jack up the prices NOW, and put some of their profit into alternate fuel research. That way, when we run out of oil, those companies won't go bankrupt - instead they'll have revenue from alternate fuels to keep them going.
If peak oil ISN'T coming, it still makes sense for them to jack up the prices NOW. Because they definitely won't be doing it once everyone realizes that we're NOT running out of oil.
Either way you look at it, it does them absolutely no good to tell us that there's lots of oil available.
On a small scale, sure. Say you need a souvenir Astronaut ring. Well, it'd be more expensive to ship all the tools from earth and make it in space than to just make it on the earth and bring it into space. But when it costs you about $10,000 per kilogram to get something into orbit, it doesn't take long before refining and manufacturing in space becomes much more cost efficient than transporting everything from earth. The initial investment would be high due to the fuel required to lift a friggin' refinery into space, but after that your costs are minimal.
So, for instance, if you wanted to build a small spacecraft for a manned mission to mars, it'd probably be cheaper to do it on earth. On the other hand, if you wanted to build 10 of them, or a large spacecraft capable of sustaining a good sized crew or even a colony, you'd have to do it orbit. At that scale you're talking about lifting something like 10,000 tons into orbit, and at current prices that'd cost you $100,000,000,000 (that's one hundred billion). Never mind the cost of actually building it, that's just to lift it. So it becomes much more efficient to build just the electronics on earth, and build the shell in orbit. Plus, once you have that capability, it's no longer so important to make the vehicles as small as possible, so you can start adding all sorts of nice amenities, like simulated gravity, recreational areas, and fruit and vegetable gardens. You could even supply the vehicle with soil and water from the asteroid, and just bring up seeds, fertilizer, and worms/insects from earth. Grow at least SOME of the food in orbit instead of giving your astronauts $10,000-a-plate meals. Every kilogram saved is $10,000 more towards space exploration, so once you've got basic refining and manufacturing capabilities in orbit, all sorts of stuff becomes a lot cheaper, and NASA becomes a hell of a lot more productive.
Wow. That was the closest thing to free-association that I've seen on Slashdot so far.
FYI, Iraq and North Korea are two entirely different countries, and people don't get jailed for abortion, or committing suicide (hard to jail you when you're dead). About the only valid example you picked was drugs, but even that is an iffy example since it can be argued (successfully) that drugs are detrimental to human society. I've always maintained that legalizing them would be a better way to mitigate their negative social effects, however, I can certainly understand the other side of the argument and can even grant it some validity. Whereas imprisonment and execution for criticizing the government has absolutely no validity, and is the epitome of government oppression. So once again, stop comparing apples and oranges. You're basically saying that, because I jaywalked once, I have no right to condemn a guy who committed murder. After all, we're both criminals, right?
Yes, but you're assuming low-light conditions would kill plants, which isn't necessarily the case. Many plants can survive just fine in medium/low light conditions. Plus with all the extra CO2 around, it'd be like one giant banquet for them. AND the majority of the world's CO2 is, as far as I know, processed by algae, not by land-based plants.
Yes, we'd need to do look into it some more before we start tweaking the amount of sunlight we're getting, but I think the basic idea is sound, it's just the details that need to be ironed out. Not to mention that such a shield would have the added benefit of protecting us from any unexpected solar activity.
Well, unless you're afraid of the dark and plan on shoving your head into a plastic bag, I don't see how being able to control the amount of sunlight we receive is going to cause suffocation.
The mirror idea has been discussed before and is nothing new...however, what about doing the opposite for other planets? Say you want to cool down Venus. Just stick a giant coin in an orbit somewhere between the sun and Venus. Voila, instant permanent eclipse. Might not be a bad idea to start looking into similar technology for earth. Say, manufacture a variable opacity lens, or even just some controllable slats which could be turned to different angles in order to let more or less sunlight through. That way if Global Warming really does get as bad as is being predicted, we can give ourselves a couple decades of twilight to try and sort out the environment.
Actually, it depends on how you define "trillion":) You're from the Uk so you should be aware that some of your countrymen, and most people in the rest of Europe, still define it as 10^18 instead of 10^12.
As has already been pointed out, the oil industry doesn't gain anything from debunking peak-oil. In fact, they have more opportunity to profit if they help the peak-oil theories gain wider acceptance. Gives them an excuse to jack up prices.
Well, I don't know who "you guys" is, but I never said any such thing, and I can't recall anyone else saying it either. Although I'll admit I did think banning DDT was a bad idea. Turns out I was right about that one.
Anyway, we'll just assume you're statement is true, and I'll say "keep up the good work and keep coming up with non disruptive ways to save the environment".
Lars my man, if you can come up with a way to effectively combat CO2 emissions without damaging the economy...well, GREAT! Run it by me and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. Unfortunately every scheme I've seen discussed would have pretty disruptive effects on the economy. I don't see a need to go into detail on it, since it's really up to the anti-CO2 people to come up with a workable solution. Me, I'd be quite content letting CO2 rise, so if you want to lower CO2 emissions then people like YOU are going to have to come up with a plan, and convince people like me that it's worthwhile, and won't damage the economy. Until you've succeeded in that, I'm more than justified in believing that CO2 reduction programs would damage the economy, and don't need to justify that belief to you. So far, the best your side has come up with is Kyoto, and that was a total joke.
What would you rather have? One good final meal, or a few dribs and drabs over the course of a couple days? What's the point of reducing emissions if it only delays global warming by a small factor? If we're fucked no matter what, might as well go out with a bang.
When Texas starts executing people for saying "Geroge Bush is a Poopie Head", then you'll have a case, until then you're not even comparing apples and oranges, more like apples and MRI machines.
Granted it's not a topic which gets much attention....but that's rather the point. Tell your average liberal arts college student that there's still slavery going on today, and they'll probably think you're talking about Bush.
Why do we need so many shows built around rape, murder, kidnapping, child abuse, torture, etc?
You seem to have internet access, yet are unaware that pornographic movies outnumber violent ones by a ratio of about 1,000,000 to 1. That's....strange.
Hell, it just makes Iraq another video game/reality show.
Is that how you see Iraq?
It's hardly shocking anymore to read about the daily 30-80-150(today's count) kidnapped, murdered, etc. in Baghdad alone.
It's also hardly shocking to read about the daily stoning-to-death of women in Iran for adultery. Or the execution of Christians over dumb political cartoons. Or a suicide bomber going off in an Israeli coffee shop. What's your point? The world's a fucked up place. You either get desensitized, or you go insane.
Getting up towards a million killed that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but where's the outrage over the loss of life, regardless of political leanings?
Ah, I see, you're just playing partisan politics. Call me back when you're ready to express your outrage about the Rwanda massacre, the 2 million Vietnamese killed by Cambodia and the NVA, the daily killings in the Sudan, state-organized executions in North Korea, or the slavery business run by Muslims in Africa. As long as you're only trying to be outraged by US actions, you're just a bloody hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely it'd be something along the lines of:
"These penis enlargements are so primitive! They just don't compare to my nano-pump(tm)!"
That's only because North America wasn't colonized yet ;)
The Europeans are great at experimenting with revolutionary stuff like this
Oh yeah! They came up with Nazism and Communism after all. What could possibly go wrong?
No, no it doesn't. Your /etc/passwd file isn't actually encrypted. You can copy the file no problem. But the passwords in it ARE encrypted. In order to view them, you need to decrypt them first.
Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it. However, you'd need some pretty specialized equipment for that. The only other way to copy a DVD is to decrypt it first. Technically, even to WATCH a DVD, you have to decrypt it first. Your DVD player does all the decryption without you being aware of it, but it DOES decrypt the movie.
Uh. How exactly do you plan on ripping it without decrypting it?
That's rather like saying "I don't need to decrypt your password in order to copy files from this protected archives, I'll just copy the files!".
So, theoretically, if I charge you $20 to come over and install for you the Windows CD which you've already bought, I'm breaking the law? Because that's exactly what you're saying. I'm making money by copying content from one media to another.
"no position to do future harm"? Are you insane?
Let's see...there's:
1) Parole.
2) Escape.
3) Assault/murder/rape of other inmates.
4) Assault on guards.
5) Rioting (property damage and assault).
Nope, no future harm at all.
I'd like to suggest that once they're 6 feet under, their ability to "do future harm" is greatly decreased.
Not positioned? Who, exactly, is in a better position to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel? The god-damn Girl Scouts?
The oil industry isn't just going to roll over and die. Unless we actually come up with REAL high-capacity batteries, you can bet your ass that 100 years down the road, Shell and Texaco will still be providing fuel for whatever kind of car you're driving at that point.
So now you're saying that they CAN think in the long term? Funny, because the last time I argued that it made no sense for them to base their entire business model on a resource which might run out in their lifetime, a guy like you just blamed that on Oil companies inability to think long-term.
Let me break it down for you:
If peak oil IS coming, the only thing that makes sense is for the oil companies to jack up the prices NOW, and put some of their profit into alternate fuel research. That way, when we run out of oil, those companies won't go bankrupt - instead they'll have revenue from alternate fuels to keep them going.
If peak oil ISN'T coming, it still makes sense for them to jack up the prices NOW. Because they definitely won't be doing it once everyone realizes that we're NOT running out of oil.
Either way you look at it, it does them absolutely no good to tell us that there's lots of oil available.
On a small scale, sure. Say you need a souvenir Astronaut ring. Well, it'd be more expensive to ship all the tools from earth and make it in space than to just make it on the earth and bring it into space. But when it costs you about $10,000 per kilogram to get something into orbit, it doesn't take long before refining and manufacturing in space becomes much more cost efficient than transporting everything from earth. The initial investment would be high due to the fuel required to lift a friggin' refinery into space, but after that your costs are minimal.
So, for instance, if you wanted to build a small spacecraft for a manned mission to mars, it'd probably be cheaper to do it on earth. On the other hand, if you wanted to build 10 of them, or a large spacecraft capable of sustaining a good sized crew or even a colony, you'd have to do it orbit. At that scale you're talking about lifting something like 10,000 tons into orbit, and at current prices that'd cost you $100,000,000,000 (that's one hundred billion). Never mind the cost of actually building it, that's just to lift it. So it becomes much more efficient to build just the electronics on earth, and build the shell in orbit. Plus, once you have that capability, it's no longer so important to make the vehicles as small as possible, so you can start adding all sorts of nice amenities, like simulated gravity, recreational areas, and fruit and vegetable gardens. You could even supply the vehicle with soil and water from the asteroid, and just bring up seeds, fertilizer, and worms/insects from earth. Grow at least SOME of the food in orbit instead of giving your astronauts $10,000-a-plate meals. Every kilogram saved is $10,000 more towards space exploration, so once you've got basic refining and manufacturing capabilities in orbit, all sorts of stuff becomes a lot cheaper, and NASA becomes a hell of a lot more productive.
Wow. That was the closest thing to free-association that I've seen on Slashdot so far.
FYI, Iraq and North Korea are two entirely different countries, and people don't get jailed for abortion, or committing suicide (hard to jail you when you're dead). About the only valid example you picked was drugs, but even that is an iffy example since it can be argued (successfully) that drugs are detrimental to human society. I've always maintained that legalizing them would be a better way to mitigate their negative social effects, however, I can certainly understand the other side of the argument and can even grant it some validity. Whereas imprisonment and execution for criticizing the government has absolutely no validity, and is the epitome of government oppression. So once again, stop comparing apples and oranges. You're basically saying that, because I jaywalked once, I have no right to condemn a guy who committed murder. After all, we're both criminals, right?
Yes, but you're assuming low-light conditions would kill plants, which isn't necessarily the case. Many plants can survive just fine in medium/low light conditions. Plus with all the extra CO2 around, it'd be like one giant banquet for them. AND the majority of the world's CO2 is, as far as I know, processed by algae, not by land-based plants.
Yes, we'd need to do look into it some more before we start tweaking the amount of sunlight we're getting, but I think the basic idea is sound, it's just the details that need to be ironed out. Not to mention that such a shield would have the added benefit of protecting us from any unexpected solar activity.
Well, unless you're afraid of the dark and plan on shoving your head into a plastic bag, I don't see how being able to control the amount of sunlight we receive is going to cause suffocation.
The mirror idea has been discussed before and is nothing new...however, what about doing the opposite for other planets? Say you want to cool down Venus. Just stick a giant coin in an orbit somewhere between the sun and Venus. Voila, instant permanent eclipse. Might not be a bad idea to start looking into similar technology for earth. Say, manufacture a variable opacity lens, or even just some controllable slats which could be turned to different angles in order to let more or less sunlight through. That way if Global Warming really does get as bad as is being predicted, we can give ourselves a couple decades of twilight to try and sort out the environment.
Actually, it depends on how you define "trillion" :) You're from the Uk so you should be aware that some of your countrymen, and most people in the rest of Europe, still define it as 10^18 instead of 10^12.
Well, at least you stayed true to your username.
As has already been pointed out, the oil industry doesn't gain anything from debunking peak-oil. In fact, they have more opportunity to profit if they help the peak-oil theories gain wider acceptance. Gives them an excuse to jack up prices.
Name one invention that came about because "we cared".
Can't think of any?
Didn't think so.
Most inventions and solutions come about because people "care" about making money.
Well, I don't know who "you guys" is, but I never said any such thing, and I can't recall anyone else saying it either. Although I'll admit I did think banning DDT was a bad idea. Turns out I was right about that one.
Anyway, we'll just assume you're statement is true, and I'll say "keep up the good work and keep coming up with non disruptive ways to save the environment".
Hah. So we need to increase our toxic gas emissions in order to cancel out the effects of increased CO2 emissions? :) Someone better tell Al Gore!
Seriously, this kind of thing really goes to show just how ignorant we really are about the global climate.
Lars my man, if you can come up with a way to effectively combat CO2 emissions without damaging the economy...well, GREAT! Run it by me and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. Unfortunately every scheme I've seen discussed would have pretty disruptive effects on the economy. I don't see a need to go into detail on it, since it's really up to the anti-CO2 people to come up with a workable solution. Me, I'd be quite content letting CO2 rise, so if you want to lower CO2 emissions then people like YOU are going to have to come up with a plan, and convince people like me that it's worthwhile, and won't damage the economy. Until you've succeeded in that, I'm more than justified in believing that CO2 reduction programs would damage the economy, and don't need to justify that belief to you. So far, the best your side has come up with is Kyoto, and that was a total joke.
What would you rather have? One good final meal, or a few dribs and drabs over the course of a couple days? What's the point of reducing emissions if it only delays global warming by a small factor? If we're fucked no matter what, might as well go out with a bang.
Yes, David Berkowitz was quite the freethinker, too bad we punished the poor guy.
Depending on how I look at your question, the answer is either "too many" or "not enough".
When Texas starts executing people for saying "Geroge Bush is a Poopie Head", then you'll have a case, until then you're not even comparing apples and oranges, more like apples and MRI machines.
Your google-foo is weak, young grasshopper.
Try here for starters.
Granted it's not a topic which gets much attention....but that's rather the point. Tell your average liberal arts college student that there's still slavery going on today, and they'll probably think you're talking about Bush.
Why do we need so many shows built around rape, murder, kidnapping, child abuse, torture, etc?
You seem to have internet access, yet are unaware that pornographic movies outnumber violent ones by a ratio of about 1,000,000 to 1. That's....strange.
Hell, it just makes Iraq another video game/reality show.
Is that how you see Iraq?
It's hardly shocking anymore to read about the daily 30-80-150(today's count) kidnapped, murdered, etc. in Baghdad alone.
It's also hardly shocking to read about the daily stoning-to-death of women in Iran for adultery. Or the execution of Christians over dumb political cartoons. Or a suicide bomber going off in an Israeli coffee shop. What's your point? The world's a fucked up place. You either get desensitized, or you go insane.
Getting up towards a million killed that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but where's the outrage over the loss of life, regardless of political leanings?
Ah, I see, you're just playing partisan politics. Call me back when you're ready to express your outrage about the Rwanda massacre, the 2 million Vietnamese killed by Cambodia and the NVA, the daily killings in the Sudan, state-organized executions in North Korea, or the slavery business run by Muslims in Africa. As long as you're only trying to be outraged by US actions, you're just a bloody hypocrite.