it's easier, and perhaps routine practice for your isp to log dns requests to their dns servers, whereas i would have imagined that sniffing packets that are not destined for their servers and logging the contents would be a willful act of wiretapping
for really low print volume i would have thought inkjets were still better value - i bought a canon i250 5 years ago for $70 and i've bought compatible cartridges at about $10 a set which i've replaced about ten times. This has printed everything i've needed for my business for 5 years. My mother has a pixma mp140 which was about $100 and she's replaced the cartidges about 5 times in 3 years for a total cost of about $150 including the printer. This in the uk (i converted the prices to dollars for clarity). If i'd bought a laser printer for $800 i'd still be way out of pocket relatively speaking. It's going to take forever for me to spend $800 on my printer, even if i replace it a couple of times.
He means 600mb including various running apps. Vista uses nearly a Gig from a cold boot with nothing running. If you disable lots of services, aero, etc. you can get it to idle at around 600-700megs. Ubuntu idles at about 250-300megs - on ubuntu 9.10 right now i have thunderbird, firefox, openoffice(with a huge spreadsheet open), dropbox, compiz and rhythmbox running and i'm using 550 megs. Even if i only had 512mbs of ram this would still be tolerable as some of those apps would be swapped out and I wouldn't notice too much. On the other hand if everything including the system processes were constantly being swapped in an out, i would be experiencing Vista-like performance.
they're not legally obliged to do it - they do it to comply with standards, and I imagine it is to do with their "don't be evil" (not "do no evil" - doing and being have different implications) slogan, since ignoring robots.txt would be exploitative and antisocial.
I think what he means is this new gravity theory is to Einstein as Einstein was to Newton. So Einsteinian gravity would be a subset of this new gravity.
If you want to run an experiment and it has a "bias" towards proving global warming...you are much more likely to get money for it. If your experiment does not include a "global warming" component, you are a lot less likely to get funding.
Can you back this claim up? I'm open minded, but I'm wary of people pulling assumptions out of their hats.
If they skipped over other tests that should have been performed before this test in order to prevent potential breakage, then the professor was right - they didn't do enough testing.
At first i thought the "google has hurried out a patch" in the summary was a quote from MS glibly dismissing the notion of fixing the problem in a timely manner, but looking through the article it seems this is a remark made by the submitter.
There are three assumptions in you argument that I would contest -
A lack of copyright laws would mean that total revenue on sales of copies of artistic works would be untenably lower than they are now, and certainly not higher.
The cost of producing artistic works can't be significantly lowered
The cost of marketing artistic works can't be significantly lowered
My argument is that none of those assumptions are necessarily true, and in my opinion none of them are.
The argument that expensive or obscure projects are difficult/risky to make a profit on applies whether or not copyright exists. If an absence of copyright laws reduces revenue by say 50% then all that does is increase the incentive to be more efficient and produce better work for less money.
I think the bone of contention here is how much of a reduction in revenue would a lack of copyright laws create? As I understand it, you're arguing that the reduction would be great enough that it would make production of a lot of works untenable. I think that all it would do is change the way works are produced. And I also think that there would be a lot of cases where projects would make more money or would even become actually feasible only because of an absence of copyright laws.
There are also the gains to society as a whole to be made from the abolition of copyright. How much time and money are tied up in wasteful bureaucracy create by the copyright industry? How much culture and knowledge are obscured and partitioned away from the poorer members of the population? How many works are unrealised due to the costs associated with copyright issues/disputes?
there are a lot of immoral people out there who will take the content, think it's fantastic and never pay for it
and how is that different from what happens under the current system? People pirate stuff whether or not there is a law against it. If you look at the sales for those examples i gave above, a fairly significant proportion of the consumers paid nothing or one penny. Yet the artists still raked in an amount of money they were more than happy with. The question is how many of the people who pay for music/games/movies at the moment do it because they want to pay the artist or simply because they fear punishment? It seems the fear of punishment plays little or no part in how well an artist does from sales of recordings of their work. If the law does nothing to help anyone and so much to hinder culture and destroys the lives of those it decides to make obscene examples of, what possible ethical, moral or practical reason is there for its existence? How much more agile and healthy would the ecomony of art be if there were no bureaucratic barriers to tie up billions of dollars in an "industry" of litigation that is little more than a self-financing toll gate?
"Ignorant" doesn't mean you "Ignored" something. It just means you aren't aware of it. It's rather harsh to come afoul of a law you didn't even know about, but the alternative is to just allow everyone who claims they didn't know that murder was illegal to walk free.
Your suggestion is impossible to implement so it doesn't constitute an example of a method of falsifying Intelligent Design. I've spent a moderate amount of time looking into Intelligent Design and haven't found anything that I understand to be a legitimate proposal for falsifiability. Are you aware of any other tests?
For some reason 4.8 terabits/s doesn't sound like that much to me. Obviously it must be since it's boosting traffic by 20% but intuitively I would have imagined another 2 or 3 orders of magnitude for an inter-continental link.
i'm 31 and i think of the shoplifting and bird shooting episode as later episodes. The first "premiere" of a simpsons ep i watched was cape feare. in the uk simpsons was only on sky(fox) satellite tv at the time so i had to get my simpsons fix from 8 hour VHS compilations my wealthy friend taped reruns from his satellite dish. i watched the first 3 seasons over and over until they were indelibly burned into my brain so i think of any later than that as "new" eps. Simpsons seemed to jump the shark around season 9 when i started downloading it from kazaa or bitorrent or whatever was around at the time. Since then it's been 1 really solid ep per season with another couple of semi decent ones and the rest are soulless shit. I suppose there was only so much character development they could do without aging the characters. Not sure why homer had to turn into a barely sentient retard though. All the characters turned into 1 dimensional parodies of themselves. Lazy writing i guess. Maybe they were scared of south park and family guy and tried to emulate the absurd characters in those shows.
Presumably his plan is to use the nuclear waste to bombard regular sulphur with neutrons until some stick, rather than somehow decay the nuclear waste into sulphur-35.
Slashdot Mirror
hahaha that's brilliant
it's easier, and perhaps routine practice for your isp to log dns requests to their dns servers, whereas i would have imagined that sniffing packets that are not destined for their servers and logging the contents would be a willful act of wiretapping
for really low print volume i would have thought inkjets were still better value - i bought a canon i250 5 years ago for $70 and i've bought compatible cartridges at about $10 a set which i've replaced about ten times. This has printed everything i've needed for my business for 5 years. My mother has a pixma mp140 which was about $100 and she's replaced the cartidges about 5 times in 3 years for a total cost of about $150 including the printer. This in the uk (i converted the prices to dollars for clarity). If i'd bought a laser printer for $800 i'd still be way out of pocket relatively speaking. It's going to take forever for me to spend $800 on my printer, even if i replace it a couple of times.
He means 600mb including various running apps. Vista uses nearly a Gig from a cold boot with nothing running. If you disable lots of services, aero, etc. you can get it to idle at around 600-700megs. Ubuntu idles at about 250-300megs - on ubuntu 9.10 right now i have thunderbird, firefox, openoffice(with a huge spreadsheet open), dropbox, compiz and rhythmbox running and i'm using 550 megs. Even if i only had 512mbs of ram this would still be tolerable as some of those apps would be swapped out and I wouldn't notice too much. On the other hand if everything including the system processes were constantly being swapped in an out, i would be experiencing Vista-like performance.
Madman curie sounds like the name of a stunt motorcyclist
they're not legally obliged to do it - they do it to comply with standards, and I imagine it is to do with their "don't be evil" (not "do no evil" - doing and being have different implications) slogan, since ignoring robots.txt would be exploitative and antisocial.
syntax nazi
when the suns beats down and i lie on the bench, i can always hear them talk..
I think what he means is this new gravity theory is to Einstein as Einstein was to Newton. So Einsteinian gravity would be a subset of this new gravity.
You've gotta have tits to sell a paper...
If you want to run an experiment and it has a "bias" towards proving global warming...you are much more likely to get money for it. If your experiment does not include a "global warming" component, you are a lot less likely to get funding.
Can you back this claim up? I'm open minded, but I'm wary of people pulling assumptions out of their hats.
If they skipped over other tests that should have been performed before this test in order to prevent potential breakage, then the professor was right - they didn't do enough testing.
At first i thought the "google has hurried out a patch" in the summary was a quote from MS glibly dismissing the notion of fixing the problem in a timely manner, but looking through the article it seems this is a remark made by the submitter.
There are three assumptions in you argument that I would contest -
My argument is that none of those assumptions are necessarily true, and in my opinion none of them are.
The argument that expensive or obscure projects are difficult/risky to make a profit on applies whether or not copyright exists. If an absence of copyright laws reduces revenue by say 50% then all that does is increase the incentive to be more efficient and produce better work for less money.
I think the bone of contention here is how much of a reduction in revenue would a lack of copyright laws create? As I understand it, you're arguing that the reduction would be great enough that it would make production of a lot of works untenable. I think that all it would do is change the way works are produced. And I also think that there would be a lot of cases where projects would make more money or would even become actually feasible only because of an absence of copyright laws.
There are also the gains to society as a whole to be made from the abolition of copyright. How much time and money are tied up in wasteful bureaucracy create by the copyright industry? How much culture and knowledge are obscured and partitioned away from the poorer members of the population? How many works are unrealised due to the costs associated with copyright issues/disputes?
That would just make it so they don't get paid AT ALL for what they produce.
Radiohead, Trent Reznor and the developers of world of goo would beg to differ.
there are a lot of immoral people out there who will take the content, think it's fantastic and never pay for it
and how is that different from what happens under the current system? People pirate stuff whether or not there is a law against it. If you look at the sales for those examples i gave above, a fairly significant proportion of the consumers paid nothing or one penny. Yet the artists still raked in an amount of money they were more than happy with. The question is how many of the people who pay for music/games/movies at the moment do it because they want to pay the artist or simply because they fear punishment? It seems the fear of punishment plays little or no part in how well an artist does from sales of recordings of their work. If the law does nothing to help anyone and so much to hinder culture and destroys the lives of those it decides to make obscene examples of, what possible ethical, moral or practical reason is there for its existence? How much more agile and healthy would the ecomony of art be if there were no bureaucratic barriers to tie up billions of dollars in an "industry" of litigation that is little more than a self-financing toll gate?
"Ignorant" doesn't mean you "Ignored" something. It just means you aren't aware of it. It's rather harsh to come afoul of a law you didn't even know about, but the alternative is to just allow everyone who claims they didn't know that murder was illegal to walk free.
Since 80% of the population of the earth are idiots, that's a large market share.
Your suggestion is impossible to implement so it doesn't constitute an example of a method of falsifying Intelligent Design. I've spent a moderate amount of time looking into Intelligent Design and haven't found anything that I understand to be a legitimate proposal for falsifiability. Are you aware of any other tests?
i'm curious about your sig - what does it mean? I can't quite figure it out...
Wouldn't the nitrates in the soil act as a fertilizer for plants, as opposed to leaving it floating in the air for humans to breathe in?
For some reason 4.8 terabits/s doesn't sound like that much to me. Obviously it must be since it's boosting traffic by 20% but intuitively I would have imagined another 2 or 3 orders of magnitude for an inter-continental link.
Surely you mean GNOBODY.
i'm 31 and i think of the shoplifting and bird shooting episode as later episodes. The first "premiere" of a simpsons ep i watched was cape feare. in the uk simpsons was only on sky(fox) satellite tv at the time so i had to get my simpsons fix from 8 hour VHS compilations my wealthy friend taped reruns from his satellite dish. i watched the first 3 seasons over and over until they were indelibly burned into my brain so i think of any later than that as "new" eps. Simpsons seemed to jump the shark around season 9 when i started downloading it from kazaa or bitorrent or whatever was around at the time. Since then it's been 1 really solid ep per season with another couple of semi decent ones and the rest are soulless shit. I suppose there was only so much character development they could do without aging the characters. Not sure why homer had to turn into a barely sentient retard though. All the characters turned into 1 dimensional parodies of themselves. Lazy writing i guess. Maybe they were scared of south park and family guy and tried to emulate the absurd characters in those shows.
Scottish notes are legal tender in england too - never seen an irish note though.
Presumably his plan is to use the nuclear waste to bombard regular sulphur with neutrons until some stick, rather than somehow decay the nuclear waste into sulphur-35.