Or perhaps, given whatever name those stars would have, people would adjectivialize the names of extrasolar stars and use those in combination, depending on which one they would be near; 'solar', however, has in the popular lingo become unto itself not just the name of our sun, but equivalent to 'Stellar'; among nerds and scientists, however, we should keep the precision, 'Solar' (capitalized, by the way, indicating its 'Sol' origin).
Titan is also extremely cold, and has less agitation of its atmosphere; it has protection from Saturn's magnetic field (which it may be holding onto as it does pass through) and is at a much greater distance from the Sun than Ganymede is; the gases compositing the atmospheres of each are also different, which in consideration of their properties may definitely matter: my point is, that neither singly mass, nor density, nor solar distance, nor composition, nor magnetic properties, i.e. any single variable, is responsible for atmospheric density. Mars, however, is both so close to the Sun to be affected by solar winds, and so mass deficient relative to those other factors, that the planet isn't adequate for holding onto a dense atmosphere (of almost any composition): if it were around a dead star, or floating through space away from agitations, etc., then sure, you'd expect it could hold a dense--perhaps frozen (as much of Mars's atmosphere may, in fact, be, and thus on its surface and in its soil)--[r] atmosphere; but considering the variables for holding the kind of gases we'd even be interested in, it's not much worth our time, except perhaps to mine, or for other conditions for experimentation.
The same, unfortunately, applies to Venus--is inadequate to hold onto the kind of atmosphere we'd be interested in, and would even if its role were reversed with Mars (which would also mean it would be too cold). We on Earth have the sweet spot positionally, in mass, gravitationally, in density, and all the other variables you could think of. I'm happy for it too! : )
I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager, either: given that classical Christian teaching (just read Jesus directly on the subject the gospels) says 'ye must be born again', nor believes that anyone is 'swayed into the faith simply be reason' (neither denying, however, that it is reasonable); that said, I've heard several times from logicians and philosophers that the wager put forth by Pascal is almost never presented in its original context--that of an important introduction, and that the usual "weak points" are only so without that introduction--that is, the popularly attacked things in the document. I've never seen (or tried to look-up) that intro, either, (my loss I guess), but have to say 'hey thanks for the reminder'. : ) I might hold off, however, until finishing enough study to read the original (not translation).
What I keep seeing here is egalitarianism: assumptions that everyone is the same. Part of the reasons the verdict on whether eggs are good or bad just swings back and forth every decade, and similar for many other things. It has been taboo to dare say 'no, people aren't the same'; genetically speaking your origin/s likely implicate you for various abilities, specialities, problems, etc.. The only area this is publicly considered is disease: my grandfather, for instance, could immediately (in ancestry) be pinpointed to a specific Jewish population in one region of germany because of an exceedingly rare, fatal disease.
But it works otherwise too. There are the simple-enough-to-demonstrate things: faster runners in Africa for having larger leg bones. There are IQ differences between populations (and the sexes) that are, after adjusting for interference, (experience levels, opportunity, [dot] [dot] [dot]), undeniable (though the witch-hunt and scarlet letttering of all who dare even to mention them continues throughout the academic and 'scientifism' world) plainly undeniable (note, at the extremes, not generally, but extremes matter). It would not be surprising to find unreplicable results like this if they aren't being very descriminating about who is and is not used, and taking into account (possibly millions+) variables: there's a lot of knowledge and discoveries that hinge upon us being able to control far too many variables for our current handling capabilities.
Part of the problem, however, is that modern 'science', being probabilistic--a pragmatic rather than wise or knowledgeable course of action--is set-up to fail these sorts of things: the same techniques that let us mitigate many factors also defeat us when we assume egalitarianism (no I'm not speaking just of sexes using this word if you haven't figured it out). If we start use these techniques within each sex, within each people-group (one a fine level, not national levels, or modern groupings based more on propaganda than upon real associations of blood lineages) we might start getting many more results. Personally, as one studying biology, I wouldn't be surprised of certain people being able to detect magnetic fields on certain levels (though with divining rods the key is to NOT manipulate the rods with the hands, but to be as neutral as possible and let breaks in fields tug the rods), though I would doubt it of water underground and such.
I know an engineer who used to used regular wires, then proceeded to create a rod whose handle had ball bearings interior; the key to divining rods is they aren't 'divining' anything: they use magnetic fields, and it has nothing to do with sensitivity, but with being as unimpactful upon the rods as possible: letting magnetic fields turn them, not the hand. They used these to detect not just water pipes, but where cables running any sort of current that could affect the rods, so they could dig to lay new infrastructure without hitting what lay below.
He and I used to go out into areas where we new there were many cables laid and map it out: it was quite interesting; in some places, with enough criss-crossing, the rods just start going nuts: even spinning. It isn't magic, it's accidental falling upon practical inference using principles explainable scientifically. There are, of course, best and worst practices, shills, and mi
People are pretty much going to do their thing: I'm not saying 'push it' either, but rather 'no FUD': it's too simplistic to assume 'we might be near', or anything like it; especially considering our ability to harness more energy--there's a giant ball spewing it out right above us. ; ) It's not so much, I think, we need push for population controls: those would be useless with current populations being as high as they are even if largely obeyed: their the simpletons' and knee-jerkers' reaction. Rather behavior is more important right now: crack down upon corrupt politicians, deal with corporatism, public and private, where the institution is the end and is protected at all costs, rather than living or dying as it should; force recycling (or storing recyclables until recycling them is economical), and incinerate what cannot be (this is much more earth-friendly than burying it, and the emissions can be scrubbed of toxins--while C02, contrary to the alarmists, is GOOD: pump it to greenhouses or emit it on farms); farm arable, rather than arid, regions; require manufacturers NOT to make the packaging 'an experience' (Apple); and etc., and etc.. There are all sorts of things that can be initiated now which would have massive impacts, big and tiny, which are possible (telling people 'no more children', or 'just so many', is assanine, as China is discovering: networks of families just hide the offspring from the government).
The problem with 'sustainable population', however, is the most a-scientific of people are the ones who concocted the myths: not that 'sustainable population' needs be a mythological subject, but the current thinking on the subject is popular and sensational, and unfortunately the 'scientists' who like to touch on it are often where they are and who they are because they themselves like to stir and foment sensation: even a basic university education is quickly able to demonstrate that many of the supposedly superior thinkers of our day are heavily into sensation, rather than sober thinking: I'm more into the rogue thinkers's thoughts and evaluations than these 'consensus' 'thinkers' [idiots] of our day. It is possible as we speak to fit the world's population into quite tiny areas. Now, if we remove the populations from the arable regions (much of Europe, much of the western coast of the U.S., the Nile River Valley, the Eastern coasts of China and America, Africa's rims, . ..) we suddenly have a much larger field to plow: and the population will be PLENTY feedable. It's not that we're ANYWHERE near capacity of population, but that behaviors, not even as much consumption rate or quantity as this one: location, must change. If we also work on a few tiny things here and there (rather than just that biggy) those each save a lot themselves. You're such a worry wart.
Sir, your logic is correct. : ) It's just bull shoved on us all, like the distinctions between 'it's' and 'its', which roles originally were reversed, and just before their present assignments were used interchangeably (i.e. 'determine from context you buffoons!'). It's not that Saxon genitives can't be used, it's that pedants, people who wanted to arbitrarily (often against both history, use, and reason--yes I did just use 'both' like that: examine English use, people do it all the time) dictate rules which aren't genuinely necessary or reasonable...want to dictate rules that aren't genuinely necessary or reasonable.
Isn't Fedora the testbed for RedHat? Isn't that why CentOS exists, so RedHat stable can be used without the costs of trademarks? I wouldn't be surprised if Fedora used it: Fedora is meant to be unstable, isn't it? Or did Fedora fork into another project?
'Luring people away from Bill Gates' is not the issue: it's 'away from the photo software that came with my digital which I can put antlers on my kids heads', or 'away from the software dedicated to my work and standard in my industry' that's the problem; Gates is just assumed: many I meet don't even understand what an OS is: a computer is just this appliance thing, much like Apple intends its stuff, but Microsoft-loaded computers are just assumed to be.
Get the software available, and you'll start getting the moves; not that the UI and many (MANY) other (horrendous and often easily fixed) problems in Linux aren't themselves issues. Note how so many people get a Mac and, they say, 'I/we love it'; this only works when the software they need is available for their platform (i.e. if it's for work, etc.), but Mac by virtue of being known, commercial, supported, gives clear documentation to devs, is reliable enough a company (one can never rely on the distro makers for Liux much), etc., is supported widely enough (and just enough) that it's somewhat viable; not to mention they don't flinch at the idea of advertising dual-boot (they've become aggressive because on hardware--see commercials, but in reality they're pretty much OS agnostic in a way: and not worried that someone must boot into the other for some tasks, whereas with Linux it's always 'we're trying to replace...').
Anyway, just some thoughts: typing this from Xubuntu, and loving it. : )
Okay, now I'm angry. This 'spends more on healthcare, but has lower numbers' idiocy has to stop. Think of the logic: it's the same thinking the government has: following numbers off cliffs. How about 'has lower lifespans because of...lifestyles'? Americasn aren't known for being averse to risk taking, you know, on every level: it's what makes things interesting. The U.S. also tends to have more sane handling of numbers in heath statistics, by the way, (not that government, or the agitproping media, handles them sanely, or honestly). We consistently count infants deaths for mortality figures, for instance: much of the world won't count deaths days after birth.:(
And frankly how are they tabulating 'standard of care'? How are they quantifying 'standard of care'? Really...really...SOMEBODY ENLIGHTEN ME, AND HOW THE FRICK DOES SOME GUY IN THE U.K. HAVE A CLUE?
Dude, all those companies WERE popular before Google purchased them. "Google Earth" was (and actually remains) a commercial tool (it wasn't targeted at the general public); Writely was the well-known name online productivity suite; maps, however, I'm unsure of...so modify my first statement a bit. As for competition: there's plenty, but not in the same space (not same targets) as Google. Google Earth is just one of many tools used for those who need topographical and other such data; there are plenty of online productivity suites (and Google's is arguably FAR behind most others), and maps is still (among all the regular users of computers I know) dead last in the chain of mapping programs used for directions, etc.. These tools are arguably popular with geeks and the young because Google has the power to pull weight and feature first in search, and also advertise them. Effectively Google is acting just as Microsoft always has, and they're not even the best in all these things, but people think they are; they're just acquiring good tech, and note how they keep destroying many acquisitions (sound familiar?), such as Blogger, the groups acquisitions, and etc..
What major (huge) companies like Google and Microsoft do is pick-and-choose between acquisition and piece things together, making an ecosystem consistent with their business model and intended userbase.
Depends on the kind of engineers; since some are all theory and no bite, while the technicians do the material work, this isn't wholly accurate. Furthermore it might be better to have more farmers who know organic/organic-ish methods and some supply-chain/manufacturing types to get food production rolling along again to keep pace with repopulation.
(Yes, by the way, I catch the reference: just veering away from the joke for a moment to muse on the thought.)
I don't know where your 'here' is, but of course they don't have it in the U.K.: this is why the U.S. must seek extradition; in the event criminals wanted by the U.K. are in the U.S., the U.K. can (and does) seek extradition too: we're countries on friendly terms that are already very cooperative, but even if we weren't, this could still be sought: near-enemies even request extradition from one another, so long as they have some form of diplomatic relations (and even that's not really requisite). Now, perhaps I'm ignorant of some things that I should otherwise know about, but nothing about this seems unusual to this writer. Nothing to see here: no imperialistic stench or jurisdictional trespassing (in this case).
Are you kidding? What investigative journalism? That's not coming from the major media companies these days: only political propaganda, (whatever is in their interest at the moment). I know some certain controversial figures in the media who're the types who went into journalism because they DON'T like doing real work: they don't even like math: avoided science like the plague...which should be prerequisite in our modern world, I think, before being allowed to mouth-off through newspapers. Trouble is, through them, I know more: and they're all the same, for the most part.
The truly investigative efforts and outfits are already working for practically free. Let the giant media conglomerates die, let's fight them until they die to stop warping our legal system (just like the software industry parading illegitimate, under our system, patents that really aren't authorized by our laws), and good riddance. They're already just drawing out of the same founts anyways, in large part: the crappy AP--and what news worth hearing (form the AP) is almost never reported by them. For instance, in the U.S. while we were having fiscal crises caused by political manipulation of markets they were dumping the blame on the companies and markets to protect the politicians (it took a science fiction author to pipe-up and say 'follow the money'); while exceedingly important events through the world were taking place, the media (in the U.S. at least) was fawning over Michele Obama's friggin' sleeveless gowns.:(
Sad thing is, it's often the little guys, or even the wacky fringe entities, that report the stuff from the AP that should be heard: which then discredits the info (even when it is from the AP) because of who's reporting it.
But as I said, they're not usually worth using: when your 'investigative' reporters are pushing terrorist propaganda from their 'we don't have to tell you' "sources" (there have been numerous embarrassments lately that were discovered from later fact-checking that eventually turned-out the truth of matters...but you won't hear about such gaffs, not even in apology, from the regular media, unless you somehow get another major media outlet to embarrass the hell out of them), they're no longer any use: when they're not always critical ("examining") of the government, glorying in the power, their dinner guests, their pals to joke with, etc., they're no good (at least in the U.S. system: freedom of the press here is for undermining attempts by men to effect tyrany--illegitimate taking and enforcement of power; all around us, however, is tyranny in the U.S. (in that old, proper, non sensationalized/mis-used sense of the term).
NSA Wiretapping Program, Secret CIA Prisons, Torture, etc. is all good to hear about: but note these aren't the things that are the primary threats: how about hearing of collusion between government and their favored entities (whether a for-profit corporation or not)? Widespread corruption and felony acts that the majority congress just legislates itself out of trouble for retroactively? Total violation of the rules and an intense drive to remove all restrictions to their power to go forward unopposed, and unopposable? Those things are great to hear about, but not when they're now undone, old news, that's being used to cover-up and distract from current events of much more import.
Torture is unfortunate, yet has nothing to do with threats to national liberty (when committed against enemy combatants who are not citizens: their rights come from international law, they're not constitutionally protected, despite what politicizing judges might assert--and no, I don't support torture). "Secret CIA Prisons" are good to hear about: but not when it's all hearsay (they are as yet unconfirmed and come from accusations of politicians who have major interests in fomenting anger directed outside their borders--i.e. at the U.S.--away from themselves). Wiretapping? International: no laws against that here...it's when it's at the citizens that it becomes a concern (and inevitably there will be violations of those prohibitions: at which point we need to know, but NOT WHEN IT'S MERELY TO DISTRACT FROM MORE CURRENT AND DIRE CONCERNS).
As fooslacker (961470) put it, we already do this in brick and mortar stores. If you've ever worked grocery, you'll find out about this: some of the grocery companies are so large they don't need to collude with anyone: Kroger, for instance, owns just about every grocery store you can name, and any you can't, throughout the world, and then some: not only do they own the marketplaces, they also own every product anyone could ever want to buy. See how dangerous this situation is?
We don't dismantle companies like this needlessly, but we do force them to sell others' products: including those of the other giant food companies of the world, as well as the products of little guys. The reason you learn this working grocery is that while stocking shelves you're trained not to stock, touch, put in order, etc. the items of competitors to the store's: fair enough, I think--their competitors send-in workers to do that for their own products.
In the event marketplaces become dominant such that nothing else is an option (either people don't know about other sources, or there are not enough that do to make others worth a product developer's (software or otherwise) time & money to "support"), the controllers can proceed to determine all pricing, whether or not certain things remain available (oh, you need that drug to live? Oh well: not profitable enough for us--by the way this is already a problem in innumerable areas), whether or not they'll let you shop (get out of our store...even thought we're the only one left: don't step foot in any other store, either--we own them), and worse. It's not far-fetched: we have all these measures for good reasons...historical, not just theoretical, reasons.
p.s. your "It's not nearly that simple." towards the fact of law that non-damaging copying isn't harmful to the holders (whether or not legal, again, it can't be considered damages nonetheless), to which I responded above--particularly on how this sets the only person who can know what's what making the claim 'I wouldn't have bought', vs. those who have interests in deriving profit on insisting otherwise, but can't know that apart from some external written evidence or valid confession to the contrary, really iS that simple: it's a question of 'guilty until proven innocent'; copyright infringement can be proven, at which point the court can order a desist, but damages CANNOT be proven in this case, and thus any grant of damages to the copyright holder is invalid and illegal, because the infringer, and any others the infringer assisted in infringement, cannot be proven to be guilty of forsaking a potential paying course for a free course that leaves it only potential. This is the nature of digital. Law that operates against the nature of that which it considers through legislation is assannine wishful thinking, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and ultimately inapplicable validly, and unenforceable validly. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it, thought addressing practical matters and affairs that aren't always consistent, the law itself must be both consistent and fair: logic is paramount therein, or else all treated are getting treated unreasonably--we must be able to come to the same conclusions or else it is no law; the interposition of 'interpretation' to muddy this can be willful by those who wish the law to be other than it is, a fact arising from application of inapplicable laws to new matters, or arising from poorly written legislation for, despite the insistence of many these days that it's clearly ambiguous for being written 'in natural human language', well implemented law itself is artificial language just as the language of any specialized discipline is exact and artificial; our current problem is a lawless society at every level, commoners through the legislators, and all who wish to make law do their bidding rather than being just.
The first reply to your comment said it well. I have a few more remarks, however, on all this.
First, the U.S. system (the system the whole world is essentially duplicating--which system's manipulators are trying to get their will worldwide, and often more rapidly and vastly than in the U.S.), is operating out of line with its original intent; effectively copyright is indefinite rather than limited (especially in view of the original limitations and in consideration that it's now beyond lifetimes), and has already ruled at court that duplication of copyrighted material is not theft.
Second, the very nuspeak employed to try changing the argument in favor of the massive interest lobbies, such as 'piracy', is not constituted by sound terminology: it is slanted from the start to predirect consideration to a predetermined goal.
Third, it is no fallacy for someone to say 'I would not have bought this anyways', it is a common, everyday, conclusion that people correctly come to; potential income is the bone the media industry (and the software industry, and any industry trying to sell air) wants to pick-at: as far as defining potential income as actual income, thus sellable or losable, that battle is nearly lost on the idiot masses, but there's enough push-back to undo that damage: it is out of line with the law, which itself, as mentioned above, is being contorted and abused. Insisting that potential is possesable, and therefore subject to theft, is wholly baseless, and is already settled in the U.S.: that's why copyright violations are considered 'damages', not theft; that insistence--the wish to gain control over the law this way and make it say so, is pure greed.
Fourth, on that note, your statement "Your "nobody ever went broke from piracy" is completely, completely beside the point." is, in fact, flawed: that is exactly the point, because that which is under consideration by the law is 'damages', which evidence does not bear-out that the media industry (which has repeatedly been exposed as consistently and wilfully mishandling and even fabricating numbers) has suffered 'damages'; in the event persons are willing to acquire, but not pay, for something--they want it, but not so much that they want to pay, there are no damages suffered, whether or not that industry likes it. On mention of their many false claims I add the illustration of CD sales--which have corresponded in decline with the increase in online sales; they're also losing 'sales' of individual numbers in compilations that people don't want, which in the CD era could not be avoided, but the loss is not to piracy, just that people are paying only for what they want; atop this, with the lack of physical media, it is not unreasonable that lower prices be demanded since the total costs are lower, and people realize this: capitalism at work.
If they make products consistently that people will want to pay for them, then they'll pay: in the event those people don't buy what they would, then there are damages; in the event, however, it's the lower-quality (perceived) crap they'd have but not buy, then it's not; among those who simply could not afford to pay, there won't be paying, so there are no damages: even if they would have liked to buy, but their income doesn't allow, there's not even the 'potential' (which see above anyways) to buy, and the so-called 'piracy' will likely lead only to fans/consumers/'potential' customers which likely would not have been before: it is like having access to many unknown numbers through Pandora: since Pandora came online I've discovered hundreds of artists and bands whereas my tastes before were very limited; potential publicity/awareness is desirable, but 'potential value=value' is not valid in either law, or reason.
Whether or not you like it, on the one hand you can have the assertion of the pushers that their target 'would have bought if s/he hadn't duplicated', even though they cannot read the person's mind, whereas on the other hand the person who can be honest with him or herself (whether or not
One, agreed. Two, I'm all in favor of putting punctuation more sensibly placed outside of the quotation marks outside: the assertion that the contrary should be used is wholly arbitrary, and not followed everywhere in the world.
'Is' sets the subject of the verb, and object of the verb, to be equal; 'is' functions to equivocate in that instance; usually also in a sense of the present, though that is merely incidental. And to an above comment, my 'babbling' wasn't incoherent, but purposefully vague. But I wonder whether that was mistaken for babbling so I was implicitly called an idiot, or the responder just didn't like my mention of the GPL's 'dirty little secret': which I don't explicit clearly because frankly I'm glad that currently it's utilized according to the FSF wishes, rather than what the document fully licenses (and does not). Until version three, it's apparent amateurs (both in grammar, and unfamiliar with law) wrote it. Being vague but intelligible to those who know (yet keep cooperating), is better than making more know (who might decide to do otherwise).
I need to correct myself on one point, it's not 'what the GPL intends to accomplish', but 'what the FSF may have intended it to accomplish', or 'what the FSF wishes it to accomplish', as obviously a document itself can successffully (or unsuccessfully) embody an intent, but not itself intend.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps, given whatever name those stars would have, people would adjectivialize the names of extrasolar stars and use those in combination, depending on which one they would be near; 'solar', however, has in the popular lingo become unto itself not just the name of our sun, but equivalent to 'Stellar'; among nerds and scientists, however, we should keep the precision, 'Solar' (capitalized, by the way, indicating its 'Sol' origin).
Titan is also extremely cold, and has less agitation of its atmosphere; it has protection from Saturn's magnetic field (which it may be holding onto as it does pass through) and is at a much greater distance from the Sun than Ganymede is; the gases compositing the atmospheres of each are also different, which in consideration of their properties may definitely matter: my point is, that neither singly mass, nor density, nor solar distance, nor composition, nor magnetic properties, i.e. any single variable, is responsible for atmospheric density. Mars, however, is both so close to the Sun to be affected by solar winds, and so mass deficient relative to those other factors, that the planet isn't adequate for holding onto a dense atmosphere (of almost any composition): if it were around a dead star, or floating through space away from agitations, etc., then sure, you'd expect it could hold a dense--perhaps frozen (as much of Mars's atmosphere may, in fact, be, and thus on its surface and in its soil)--[r] atmosphere; but considering the variables for holding the kind of gases we'd even be interested in, it's not much worth our time, except perhaps to mine, or for other conditions for experimentation.
The same, unfortunately, applies to Venus--is inadequate to hold onto the kind of atmosphere we'd be interested in, and would even if its role were reversed with Mars (which would also mean it would be too cold). We on Earth have the sweet spot positionally, in mass, gravitationally, in density, and all the other variables you could think of. I'm happy for it too! : )
I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager, either: given that classical Christian teaching (just read Jesus directly on the subject the gospels) says 'ye must be born again', nor believes that anyone is 'swayed into the faith simply be reason' (neither denying, however, that it is reasonable); that said, I've heard several times from logicians and philosophers that the wager put forth by Pascal is almost never presented in its original context--that of an important introduction, and that the usual "weak points" are only so without that introduction--that is, the popularly attacked things in the document. I've never seen (or tried to look-up) that intro, either, (my loss I guess), but have to say 'hey thanks for the reminder'. : ) I might hold off, however, until finishing enough study to read the original (not translation).
What I keep seeing here is egalitarianism: assumptions that everyone is the same. Part of the reasons the verdict on whether eggs are good or bad just swings back and forth every decade, and similar for many other things. It has been taboo to dare say 'no, people aren't the same'; genetically speaking your origin/s likely implicate you for various abilities, specialities, problems, etc.. The only area this is publicly considered is disease: my grandfather, for instance, could immediately (in ancestry) be pinpointed to a specific Jewish population in one region of germany because of an exceedingly rare, fatal disease.
But it works otherwise too. There are the simple-enough-to-demonstrate things: faster runners in Africa for having larger leg bones. There are IQ differences between populations (and the sexes) that are, after adjusting for interference, (experience levels, opportunity, [dot] [dot] [dot]), undeniable (though the witch-hunt and scarlet letttering of all who dare even to mention them continues throughout the academic and 'scientifism' world) plainly undeniable (note, at the extremes, not generally, but extremes matter). It would not be surprising to find unreplicable results like this if they aren't being very descriminating about who is and is not used, and taking into account (possibly millions+) variables: there's a lot of knowledge and discoveries that hinge upon us being able to control far too many variables for our current handling capabilities.
Part of the problem, however, is that modern 'science', being probabilistic--a pragmatic rather than wise or knowledgeable course of action--is set-up to fail these sorts of things: the same techniques that let us mitigate many factors also defeat us when we assume egalitarianism (no I'm not speaking just of sexes using this word if you haven't figured it out). If we start use these techniques within each sex, within each people-group (one a fine level, not national levels, or modern groupings based more on propaganda than upon real associations of blood lineages) we might start getting many more results. Personally, as one studying biology, I wouldn't be surprised of certain people being able to detect magnetic fields on certain levels (though with divining rods the key is to NOT manipulate the rods with the hands, but to be as neutral as possible and let breaks in fields tug the rods), though I would doubt it of water underground and such.
I know an engineer who used to used regular wires, then proceeded to create a rod whose handle had ball bearings interior; the key to divining rods is they aren't 'divining' anything: they use magnetic fields, and it has nothing to do with sensitivity, but with being as unimpactful upon the rods as possible: letting magnetic fields turn them, not the hand. They used these to detect not just water pipes, but where cables running any sort of current that could affect the rods, so they could dig to lay new infrastructure without hitting what lay below.
He and I used to go out into areas where we new there were many cables laid and map it out: it was quite interesting; in some places, with enough criss-crossing, the rods just start going nuts: even spinning. It isn't magic, it's accidental falling upon practical inference using principles explainable scientifically. There are, of course, best and worst practices, shills, and mi
People are pretty much going to do their thing: I'm not saying 'push it' either, but rather 'no FUD': it's too simplistic to assume 'we might be near', or anything like it; especially considering our ability to harness more energy--there's a giant ball spewing it out right above us. ; ) It's not so much, I think, we need push for population controls: those would be useless with current populations being as high as they are even if largely obeyed: their the simpletons' and knee-jerkers' reaction. Rather behavior is more important right now: crack down upon corrupt politicians, deal with corporatism, public and private, where the institution is the end and is protected at all costs, rather than living or dying as it should; force recycling (or storing recyclables until recycling them is economical), and incinerate what cannot be (this is much more earth-friendly than burying it, and the emissions can be scrubbed of toxins--while C02, contrary to the alarmists, is GOOD: pump it to greenhouses or emit it on farms); farm arable, rather than arid, regions; require manufacturers NOT to make the packaging 'an experience' (Apple); and etc., and etc.. There are all sorts of things that can be initiated now which would have massive impacts, big and tiny, which are possible (telling people 'no more children', or 'just so many', is assanine, as China is discovering: networks of families just hide the offspring from the government).
The problem with 'sustainable population', however, is the most a-scientific of people are the ones who concocted the myths: not that 'sustainable population' needs be a mythological subject, but the current thinking on the subject is popular and sensational, and unfortunately the 'scientists' who like to touch on it are often where they are and who they are because they themselves like to stir and foment sensation: even a basic university education is quickly able to demonstrate that many of the supposedly superior thinkers of our day are heavily into sensation, rather than sober thinking: I'm more into the rogue thinkers's thoughts and evaluations than these 'consensus' 'thinkers' [idiots] of our day. It is possible as we speak to fit the world's population into quite tiny areas. Now, if we remove the populations from the arable regions (much of Europe, much of the western coast of the U.S., the Nile River Valley, the Eastern coasts of China and America, Africa's rims, . . .) we suddenly have a much larger field to plow: and the population will be PLENTY feedable. It's not that we're ANYWHERE near capacity of population, but that behaviors, not even as much consumption rate or quantity as this one: location, must change. If we also work on a few tiny things here and there (rather than just that biggy) those each save a lot themselves. You're such a worry wart.
Sir, your logic is correct. : ) It's just bull shoved on us all, like the distinctions between 'it's' and 'its', which roles originally were reversed, and just before their present assignments were used interchangeably (i.e. 'determine from context you buffoons!'). It's not that Saxon genitives can't be used, it's that pedants, people who wanted to arbitrarily (often against both history, use, and reason--yes I did just use 'both' like that: examine English use, people do it all the time) dictate rules which aren't genuinely necessary or reasonable...want to dictate rules that aren't genuinely necessary or reasonable.
If and when you've learned more information on this, come back here and let us know, will you?
Isn't Fedora the testbed for RedHat? Isn't that why CentOS exists, so RedHat stable can be used without the costs of trademarks? I wouldn't be surprised if Fedora used it: Fedora is meant to be unstable, isn't it? Or did Fedora fork into another project?
Just in case, English is 'Because we', not 'Because us'.
'Luring people away from Bill Gates' is not the issue: it's 'away from the photo software that came with my digital which I can put antlers on my kids heads', or 'away from the software dedicated to my work and standard in my industry' that's the problem; Gates is just assumed: many I meet don't even understand what an OS is: a computer is just this appliance thing, much like Apple intends its stuff, but Microsoft-loaded computers are just assumed to be. Get the software available, and you'll start getting the moves; not that the UI and many (MANY) other (horrendous and often easily fixed) problems in Linux aren't themselves issues. Note how so many people get a Mac and, they say, 'I/we love it'; this only works when the software they need is available for their platform (i.e. if it's for work, etc.), but Mac by virtue of being known, commercial, supported, gives clear documentation to devs, is reliable enough a company (one can never rely on the distro makers for Liux much), etc., is supported widely enough (and just enough) that it's somewhat viable; not to mention they don't flinch at the idea of advertising dual-boot (they've become aggressive because on hardware--see commercials, but in reality they're pretty much OS agnostic in a way: and not worried that someone must boot into the other for some tasks, whereas with Linux it's always 'we're trying to replace...'). Anyway, just some thoughts: typing this from Xubuntu, and loving it. : )
Okay, now I'm angry. This 'spends more on healthcare, but has lower numbers' idiocy has to stop. Think of the logic: it's the same thinking the government has: following numbers off cliffs. How about 'has lower lifespans because of...lifestyles'? Americasn aren't known for being averse to risk taking, you know, on every level: it's what makes things interesting. The U.S. also tends to have more sane handling of numbers in heath statistics, by the way, (not that government, or the agitproping media, handles them sanely, or honestly). We consistently count infants deaths for mortality figures, for instance: much of the world won't count deaths days after birth. :(
And frankly how are they tabulating 'standard of care'? How are they quantifying 'standard of care'? Really...really...SOMEBODY ENLIGHTEN ME, AND HOW THE FRICK DOES SOME GUY IN THE U.K. HAVE A CLUE?
Dude, all those companies WERE popular before Google purchased them. "Google Earth" was (and actually remains) a commercial tool (it wasn't targeted at the general public); Writely was the well-known name online productivity suite; maps, however, I'm unsure of...so modify my first statement a bit. As for competition: there's plenty, but not in the same space (not same targets) as Google. Google Earth is just one of many tools used for those who need topographical and other such data; there are plenty of online productivity suites (and Google's is arguably FAR behind most others), and maps is still (among all the regular users of computers I know) dead last in the chain of mapping programs used for directions, etc.. These tools are arguably popular with geeks and the young because Google has the power to pull weight and feature first in search, and also advertise them. Effectively Google is acting just as Microsoft always has, and they're not even the best in all these things, but people think they are; they're just acquiring good tech, and note how they keep destroying many acquisitions (sound familiar?), such as Blogger, the groups acquisitions, and etc..
What major (huge) companies like Google and Microsoft do is pick-and-choose between acquisition and piece things together, making an ecosystem consistent with their business model and intended userbase.
Depends on the kind of engineers; since some are all theory and no bite, while the technicians do the material work, this isn't wholly accurate. Furthermore it might be better to have more farmers who know organic/organic-ish methods and some supply-chain/manufacturing types to get food production rolling along again to keep pace with repopulation.
(Yes, by the way, I catch the reference: just veering away from the joke for a moment to muse on the thought.)
I don't know where your 'here' is, but of course they don't have it in the U.K.: this is why the U.S. must seek extradition; in the event criminals wanted by the U.K. are in the U.S., the U.K. can (and does) seek extradition too: we're countries on friendly terms that are already very cooperative, but even if we weren't, this could still be sought: near-enemies even request extradition from one another, so long as they have some form of diplomatic relations (and even that's not really requisite). Now, perhaps I'm ignorant of some things that I should otherwise know about, but nothing about this seems unusual to this writer. Nothing to see here: no imperialistic stench or jurisdictional trespassing (in this case).
Are you kidding? What investigative journalism? That's not coming from the major media companies these days: only political propaganda, (whatever is in their interest at the moment). I know some certain controversial figures in the media who're the types who went into journalism because they DON'T like doing real work: they don't even like math: avoided science like the plague...which should be prerequisite in our modern world, I think, before being allowed to mouth-off through newspapers. Trouble is, through them, I know more: and they're all the same, for the most part.
:(
The truly investigative efforts and outfits are already working for practically free. Let the giant media conglomerates die, let's fight them until they die to stop warping our legal system (just like the software industry parading illegitimate, under our system, patents that really aren't authorized by our laws), and good riddance. They're already just drawing out of the same founts anyways, in large part: the crappy AP--and what news worth hearing (form the AP) is almost never reported by them. For instance, in the U.S. while we were having fiscal crises caused by political manipulation of markets they were dumping the blame on the companies and markets to protect the politicians (it took a science fiction author to pipe-up and say 'follow the money'); while exceedingly important events through the world were taking place, the media (in the U.S. at least) was fawning over Michele Obama's friggin' sleeveless gowns.
Sad thing is, it's often the little guys, or even the wacky fringe entities, that report the stuff from the AP that should be heard: which then discredits the info (even when it is from the AP) because of who's reporting it.
But as I said, they're not usually worth using: when your 'investigative' reporters are pushing terrorist propaganda from their 'we don't have to tell you' "sources" (there have been numerous embarrassments lately that were discovered from later fact-checking that eventually turned-out the truth of matters...but you won't hear about such gaffs, not even in apology, from the regular media, unless you somehow get another major media outlet to embarrass the hell out of them), they're no longer any use: when they're not always critical ("examining") of the government, glorying in the power, their dinner guests, their pals to joke with, etc., they're no good (at least in the U.S. system: freedom of the press here is for undermining attempts by men to effect tyrany--illegitimate taking and enforcement of power; all around us, however, is tyranny in the U.S. (in that old, proper, non sensationalized/mis-used sense of the term).
NSA Wiretapping Program, Secret CIA Prisons, Torture, etc. is all good to hear about: but note these aren't the things that are the primary threats: how about hearing of collusion between government and their favored entities (whether a for-profit corporation or not)? Widespread corruption and felony acts that the majority congress just legislates itself out of trouble for retroactively? Total violation of the rules and an intense drive to remove all restrictions to their power to go forward unopposed, and unopposable? Those things are great to hear about, but not when they're now undone, old news, that's being used to cover-up and distract from current events of much more import.
Torture is unfortunate, yet has nothing to do with threats to national liberty (when committed against enemy combatants who are not citizens: their rights come from international law, they're not constitutionally protected, despite what politicizing judges might assert--and no, I don't support torture). "Secret CIA Prisons" are good to hear about: but not when it's all hearsay (they are as yet unconfirmed and come from accusations of politicians who have major interests in fomenting anger directed outside their borders--i.e. at the U.S.--away from themselves). Wiretapping? International: no laws against that here...it's when it's at the citizens that it becomes a concern (and inevitably there will be violations of those prohibitions: at which point we need to know, but NOT WHEN IT'S MERELY TO DISTRACT FROM MORE CURRENT AND DIRE CONCERNS).
As fooslacker (961470) put it, we already do this in brick and mortar stores. If you've ever worked grocery, you'll find out about this: some of the grocery companies are so large they don't need to collude with anyone: Kroger, for instance, owns just about every grocery store you can name, and any you can't, throughout the world, and then some: not only do they own the marketplaces, they also own every product anyone could ever want to buy. See how dangerous this situation is?
We don't dismantle companies like this needlessly, but we do force them to sell others' products: including those of the other giant food companies of the world, as well as the products of little guys. The reason you learn this working grocery is that while stocking shelves you're trained not to stock, touch, put in order, etc. the items of competitors to the store's: fair enough, I think--their competitors send-in workers to do that for their own products.
In the event marketplaces become dominant such that nothing else is an option (either people don't know about other sources, or there are not enough that do to make others worth a product developer's (software or otherwise) time & money to "support"), the controllers can proceed to determine all pricing, whether or not certain things remain available (oh, you need that drug to live? Oh well: not profitable enough for us--by the way this is already a problem in innumerable areas), whether or not they'll let you shop (get out of our store...even thought we're the only one left: don't step foot in any other store, either--we own them), and worse. It's not far-fetched: we have all these measures for good reasons...historical, not just theoretical, reasons.
p.s. your "It's not nearly that simple." towards the fact of law that non-damaging copying isn't harmful to the holders (whether or not legal, again, it can't be considered damages nonetheless), to which I responded above--particularly on how this sets the only person who can know what's what making the claim 'I wouldn't have bought', vs. those who have interests in deriving profit on insisting otherwise, but can't know that apart from some external written evidence or valid confession to the contrary, really iS that simple: it's a question of 'guilty until proven innocent'; copyright infringement can be proven, at which point the court can order a desist, but damages CANNOT be proven in this case, and thus any grant of damages to the copyright holder is invalid and illegal, because the infringer, and any others the infringer assisted in infringement, cannot be proven to be guilty of forsaking a potential paying course for a free course that leaves it only potential. This is the nature of digital. Law that operates against the nature of that which it considers through legislation is assannine wishful thinking, inconsiderate, inconsistent, and ultimately inapplicable validly, and unenforceable validly. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it, thought addressing practical matters and affairs that aren't always consistent, the law itself must be both consistent and fair: logic is paramount therein, or else all treated are getting treated unreasonably--we must be able to come to the same conclusions or else it is no law; the interposition of 'interpretation' to muddy this can be willful by those who wish the law to be other than it is, a fact arising from application of inapplicable laws to new matters, or arising from poorly written legislation for, despite the insistence of many these days that it's clearly ambiguous for being written 'in natural human language', well implemented law itself is artificial language just as the language of any specialized discipline is exact and artificial; our current problem is a lawless society at every level, commoners through the legislators, and all who wish to make law do their bidding rather than being just.
The first reply to your comment said it well. I have a few more remarks, however, on all this.
First, the U.S. system (the system the whole world is essentially duplicating--which system's manipulators are trying to get their will worldwide, and often more rapidly and vastly than in the U.S.), is operating out of line with its original intent; effectively copyright is indefinite rather than limited (especially in view of the original limitations and in consideration that it's now beyond lifetimes), and has already ruled at court that duplication of copyrighted material is not theft.
Second, the very nuspeak employed to try changing the argument in favor of the massive interest lobbies, such as 'piracy', is not constituted by sound terminology: it is slanted from the start to predirect consideration to a predetermined goal.
Third, it is no fallacy for someone to say 'I would not have bought this anyways', it is a common, everyday, conclusion that people correctly come to; potential income is the bone the media industry (and the software industry, and any industry trying to sell air) wants to pick-at: as far as defining potential income as actual income, thus sellable or losable, that battle is nearly lost on the idiot masses, but there's enough push-back to undo that damage: it is out of line with the law, which itself, as mentioned above, is being contorted and abused. Insisting that potential is possesable, and therefore subject to theft, is wholly baseless, and is already settled in the U.S.: that's why copyright violations are considered 'damages', not theft; that insistence--the wish to gain control over the law this way and make it say so, is pure greed.
Fourth, on that note, your statement "Your "nobody ever went broke from piracy" is completely, completely beside the point." is, in fact, flawed: that is exactly the point, because that which is under consideration by the law is 'damages', which evidence does not bear-out that the media industry (which has repeatedly been exposed as consistently and wilfully mishandling and even fabricating numbers) has suffered 'damages'; in the event persons are willing to acquire, but not pay, for something--they want it, but not so much that they want to pay, there are no damages suffered, whether or not that industry likes it. On mention of their many false claims I add the illustration of CD sales--which have corresponded in decline with the increase in online sales; they're also losing 'sales' of individual numbers in compilations that people don't want, which in the CD era could not be avoided, but the loss is not to piracy, just that people are paying only for what they want; atop this, with the lack of physical media, it is not unreasonable that lower prices be demanded since the total costs are lower, and people realize this: capitalism at work.
If they make products consistently that people will want to pay for them, then they'll pay: in the event those people don't buy what they would, then there are damages; in the event, however, it's the lower-quality (perceived) crap they'd have but not buy, then it's not; among those who simply could not afford to pay, there won't be paying, so there are no damages: even if they would have liked to buy, but their income doesn't allow, there's not even the 'potential' (which see above anyways) to buy, and the so-called 'piracy' will likely lead only to fans/consumers/'potential' customers which likely would not have been before: it is like having access to many unknown numbers through Pandora: since Pandora came online I've discovered hundreds of artists and bands whereas my tastes before were very limited; potential publicity/awareness is desirable, but 'potential value=value' is not valid in either law, or reason.
Whether or not you like it, on the one hand you can have the assertion of the pushers that their target 'would have bought if s/he hadn't duplicated', even though they cannot read the person's mind, whereas on the other hand the person who can be honest with him or herself (whether or not
One, agreed. Two, I'm all in favor of putting punctuation more sensibly placed outside of the quotation marks outside: the assertion that the contrary should be used is wholly arbitrary, and not followed everywhere in the world.
And yes, by the way, I know it was a joke: and I like the reference too. ;)
'Is' sets the subject of the verb, and object of the verb, to be equal; 'is' functions to equivocate in that instance; usually also in a sense of the present, though that is merely incidental. And to an above comment, my 'babbling' wasn't incoherent, but purposefully vague. But I wonder whether that was mistaken for babbling so I was implicitly called an idiot, or the responder just didn't like my mention of the GPL's 'dirty little secret': which I don't explicit clearly because frankly I'm glad that currently it's utilized according to the FSF wishes, rather than what the document fully licenses (and does not). Until version three, it's apparent amateurs (both in grammar, and unfamiliar with law) wrote it. Being vague but intelligible to those who know (yet keep cooperating), is better than making more know (who might decide to do otherwise).
You don't know what I'm trying to say, and you call me the idiot? Thanks.
I need to correct myself on one point, it's not 'what the GPL intends to accomplish', but 'what the FSF may have intended it to accomplish', or 'what the FSF wishes it to accomplish', as obviously a document itself can successffully (or unsuccessfully) embody an intent, but not itself intend.