This is just a rather ridiculous convenience/security tradeoff for now, but it will be interesting once the enhanced power adapter becomes required.
Think of the possibilities. Every device and accessory, even every component of the computer, could have cryptographic protection built right into the hardware in a way that cannot be reverse-engineered. A secure computer can only contain secure hardware (and vice versa), only approved devices can be connected to an approved computer, only an approved computer can run an approved operating system, and only an approved operating system can establish an internet connection. It will be a glorious future.
I agree, but that does not affect the objective argument. Whether or not you consider it right or wrong to break an unjust law (or even right or wrong to bribe politicians to get laws you want, about which most people have pretty clear views), the inevitable conclusion is that media companies cannot increase their profit by buying more laws, and are sabotaging their own interests by doing so.
You can't teach people that two wrongs don't make a right. If you can't even persuade a majority of people that it is not right to execute murderers, how do you hope to persuade them that it is not right to break a law they consider unjust?
Look at Pirates of the Carribbean: At World's End for an analogy. Everyone knows that piracy - the real kind, with boats - is pretty bad. Robbery, violence, kidnapping, and murder. Nobody cheers for robbers and murderers. So why did people root for the pirates? Because the people opposing them were portrayed as Complete Monsters. They were hanging people left and right for alleged association with pirates, murdering, extorting and stealing to get their way, and usurping democracy. The pirates were the good guys because the East India Company was evil. It was all the more beautiful as an allegory because Hollywood could never have made it on purpose.
From DMCA to SOPA, and from Andrew Tenenbaum to Jammie Thomas, the media industry has sabotaged its own image with deadly efficiency again and again. They have set themselves up as the villains of the piece. Nobody should be surprised that people consider it legitimate and morally right to illegally copy their product. They don't see it as stealing; they see it as fighting back.
You won't see demand for an individual film affecting the price, because the film is not the resource; the movie theater space is. If a film performs badly, it will be shown in fewer theaters, fewer times per day. Other, more popular films get shown instead.
As a theater owner, you don't want to lower the ticket price for a film in order to sell more tickets, when you could simply replace it with another film that will sell well at the same price.
In high-school economics terms: If your machine can switch between guns or butter easily, then unless the butter market is already saturated, less people buying guns will simply mean more butter production, with no effect on the price of either.
I'd think it is a new step in posthumanist fantasies rather than a reversal. This science fiction (specifically Niven's "Flatlander" stories published 1975) predates most of the advances of biotechnology, including the human genome project (1984-2003) and successful genetic engineering (first breakthrough in 1973). Just as Asimov's Multivac was a city-spanning vacuum-tube based supercomputer with a teletype interface because he couldn't conceive of nanoscopic transistors and LCDs, science fiction authors had trouble imagining artificial prosthetics that were squishy and yet equal or superior to what we're born with.
Now that tissue can be grown, expectations are raised and aesthetics become a concern. Given the choice, most would prefer being repaired or augmented while looking "natural" rather than like a steampunk cyborg. Even non-organic stuff like pacemakers or reinforced bones can be small, inconspicuous, and hidden away inside us.
Once the Orangutans get their seat of power they will likely bring in the Gorillas for security enforcement details, and the next thing you know we have a live Planet Of The Apes situation going on! There will be pandemonium, screaming, people running crazy in the streets, you know, pretty much just the the usual. Nobody will even notice the shift of power until the legislature itself realizes the pay checks have stopped coming in, and they are then forced to give up their Learjets and resign from the DC area golf clubs.
There must be a few downsides too, even though none come to mind.
The expansion phase is extremely short on those time scales. A star will typically remain a red giant for a few million years. Its surface temperature at that time will be only around 5000K, which is hot enough to evaporate the planet eventually, but not by orders of magnitude. The red giant has low density, so the heat exchange takes longer. All in all, it's not inconceivable that a planet's core might remain intact if it's on the very edge of expansion.
First, apparently we're all so used to a limited pantheon of possible names that anything outside of it must be "not real."
The alliteration and general euphoniousness of the name does more to make it sound implausible as a birth name as opposed to a chosen name, than "Moxie" not being contained in a predefined list of "biblical names".
I sign all mail, regardless of whether the recipient has a clue what digital signing even is. In order to encrypt mail, however, both the recipient and the sender must be security aware.
Practically nobody I communicate with - even among the ones who use Linux - cares enough about security to even own a key, even though they regularly include obviously sensitive information in a message.
Oh come on, Castro may be a communist and a dictator, but on his best days he couldn't hope to match the shithouse-rat-crazy antics of the Dear Leader.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just a rather ridiculous convenience/security tradeoff for now, but it will be interesting once the enhanced power adapter becomes required.
Think of the possibilities. Every device and accessory, even every component of the computer, could have cryptographic protection built right into the hardware in a way that cannot be reverse-engineered. A secure computer can only contain secure hardware (and vice versa), only approved devices can be connected to an approved computer, only an approved computer can run an approved operating system, and only an approved operating system can establish an internet connection. It will be a glorious future.
It's the first word in the headline, even.
A faux turtleneck is one that is not made out of real turtles, of course.
I didn't realize that it is actually possible for a government to decide their people are having too much fun.
I agree, but that does not affect the objective argument. Whether or not you consider it right or wrong to break an unjust law (or even right or wrong to bribe politicians to get laws you want, about which most people have pretty clear views), the inevitable conclusion is that media companies cannot increase their profit by buying more laws, and are sabotaging their own interests by doing so.
You can't teach people that two wrongs don't make a right. If you can't even persuade a majority of people that it is not right to execute murderers, how do you hope to persuade them that it is not right to break a law they consider unjust?
Look at Pirates of the Carribbean: At World's End for an analogy. Everyone knows that piracy - the real kind, with boats - is pretty bad. Robbery, violence, kidnapping, and murder. Nobody cheers for robbers and murderers. So why did people root for the pirates? Because the people opposing them were portrayed as Complete Monsters. They were hanging people left and right for alleged association with pirates, murdering, extorting and stealing to get their way, and usurping democracy. The pirates were the good guys because the East India Company was evil. It was all the more beautiful as an allegory because Hollywood could never have made it on purpose.
From DMCA to SOPA, and from Andrew Tenenbaum to Jammie Thomas, the media industry has sabotaged its own image with deadly efficiency again and again. They have set themselves up as the villains of the piece. Nobody should be surprised that people consider it legitimate and morally right to illegally copy their product. They don't see it as stealing; they see it as fighting back.
Then everything will be fine.
You won't see demand for an individual film affecting the price, because the film is not the resource; the movie theater space is. If a film performs badly, it will be shown in fewer theaters, fewer times per day. Other, more popular films get shown instead.
As a theater owner, you don't want to lower the ticket price for a film in order to sell more tickets, when you could simply replace it with another film that will sell well at the same price.
In high-school economics terms: If your machine can switch between guns or butter easily, then unless the butter market is already saturated, less people buying guns will simply mean more butter production, with no effect on the price of either.
I'd think it is a new step in posthumanist fantasies rather than a reversal. This science fiction (specifically Niven's "Flatlander" stories published 1975) predates most of the advances of biotechnology, including the human genome project (1984-2003) and successful genetic engineering (first breakthrough in 1973). Just as Asimov's Multivac was a city-spanning vacuum-tube based supercomputer with a teletype interface because he couldn't conceive of nanoscopic transistors and LCDs, science fiction authors had trouble imagining artificial prosthetics that were squishy and yet equal or superior to what we're born with.
Now that tissue can be grown, expectations are raised and aesthetics become a concern. Given the choice, most would prefer being repaired or augmented while looking "natural" rather than like a steampunk cyborg. Even non-organic stuff like pacemakers or reinforced bones can be small, inconspicuous, and hidden away inside us.
There must be a few downsides too, even though none come to mind.
Dale Carnegie's less popular book.
Better spinelessly stop supporting evil than courageously continuing to support it, though. Boycott worked exactly as intended, that's great news.
May contain mind virus. :P
Space junk! Y U NO stay in space!
If he knows what alloy it is, and it's a familiar one, what alloy is it?
I see what you did there.
The expansion phase is extremely short on those time scales. A star will typically remain a red giant for a few million years. Its surface temperature at that time will be only around 5000K, which is hot enough to evaporate the planet eventually, but not by orders of magnitude. The red giant has low density, so the heat exchange takes longer.
All in all, it's not inconceivable that a planet's core might remain intact if it's on the very edge of expansion.
You mean, when they put the human's picture on the store package?
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
The alliteration and general euphoniousness of the name does more to make it sound implausible as a birth name as opposed to a chosen name, than "Moxie" not being contained in a predefined list of "biblical names".
I sign all mail, regardless of whether the recipient has a clue what digital signing even is. In order to encrypt mail, however, both the recipient and the sender must be security aware.
Practically nobody I communicate with - even among the ones who use Linux - cares enough about security to even own a key, even though they regularly include obviously sensitive information in a message.
The same thing we do every night: Use your super-strength and my wits to take over the world!
Surprisingly, it turns out that we nerds occupy forms in the real world, and thus significant news about this world are news for nerds.
"Where's the birth certificate!"
Like, on his head?
Oh come on, Castro may be a communist and a dictator, but on his best days he couldn't hope to match the shithouse-rat-crazy antics of the Dear Leader.