Then, when you need to downgrade your prediction from "the world is going to end in ten years because all the oceans will rise up and DROWN US!!!!" to "we might not be having as much effect as we thought..." your entire movement loses ALL credibility.
If everyone were intelligent, then the public wouldn't be blinded by the mistake, dismiss the claims altogether, and just treat it more wearily. Thankfully most of the people in power are intelligent enough to recognise the body of evidence for global warming that is still valid.
It just goes to show that in the end, carefully reasoned debate and proportioned response is much more effective than hysterics.
And those flamebait mods go to show that you can't engage in a carefully reasoned debate with opportunistic smugness.
FOSS is a practical product and a resource. The only reason why it thrives so well is that there big players who support it and benefit practically from it. Why buy other software, or develop your own from scratch, when you can build upon the FOSS code-base? Can you imagine a corporation contributing to composing or distributing a piece of music without demanding the copyright? Can you see them benefiting in any way?
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happen. I mean, what kind of market or industry would worsen with unprofitability? Well, I mean, apart from every single market that has become unprofitable in history. But I'm sure music will inspire dedicated composers to risk their financial futures in distributing their work.
Or, of course, they can rely on the Internet. Or, more accurately, the people who would be able to find your site and be prepared to pay for your music. Of course, those people are probably the most able to share out your music without permission or royalties...
I live in a medium-sized city with virtually no public transport... neither walking nor our pitiful public transport is feasible for me.
If your city is big enough to get congestion, public transport and walking facilities would improve enormously. The only reason things are the way they are is that most people don't want it any other way. But since when have people known what's best for them?
Maybe if everyone drove the speed limit, and the roads got completely congested, the roads would be safer, and more people would walk or take public transport, and help alleviate the two big environmental and health issues in America.
Does it mean your old console is worn out, eroded by time and usage?
Yes. I can barely move my control sticks of my N64.
Did it break?
Yes. My gamecube did break and my N64 is controller-less.
Did Super Mario Kart expire, or did Bowser refuse to come out and play?
Yes! Super Mario Kart, Mario Kart 64, and Mario Kart Advance are all very dated. It did expire because the new ones are simply more enjoyable. Sure, if you like them, buy a Wii. You'll get full backwards compatibility, and you can get the entire back catalogue, especially since you aren't impressed with recent games produced without such technical limitations. That's not even mentioning the completely new Wii controller.
Entertainment works like this. It doesn't matter how good your previous sources of entertainment, you still will need variation to stop your enjoyment becoming obsolete. Why don't you start criticising people for shelling out way too much money for the PS3 instead of making false rationalisations about the entertainment industry?
Wow. You do have some strong beliefs on the subject, no?
Anyways, I don't think this is the reason. I think people mod down because there is a human instinct to be unpleasent, suppressive, towards that which is considered different and wrong. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't really capable of thought and instead hold a unreasoned, learned belief system, and anything different to that is by definition wrong - and they are then unpleasent and suppressive towards that difference.
Allow me to hypothesise here. Let's just say for arguments sake that you're wrong, and that my theory that they mod irresponsibly comes from their inability to mod and post in the same discussion is right. I could take most of that paragraph and turn it around on you. I think that last paragraph could be called an unpleasant, (possibly) suppressive, reaction to the opinions of others. Your view could be considered (still in the hypothetical situation here) an unreasoned learned belief system. Not to mention you disagreed very directly to my belief that the moderation system is the problem, so it is "wrong" to you, and it provoked an unpleasant and (again, possibly) suppressive response.
I'm not trying to put you down, or anything like that. What I'm trying say is, take your own advice. Think about your opinion and seriously consider others. As it stands, my opinion brought upon and unpleasant response. Instead of reasoned debate with other people, you seemed to dismiss their arguments altogether, implying they "aren't really capable of thought and instead hold a unreasoned, learned belief system". The funny thing is, as I demonstrated before, they could easily dismiss your ideas the same way.
they're a bunch of tossers and deserve all the directness they get.
Amen to that, but they just won't listen to you if you keep the aggressive tone. I've expressed some unpopular views here at slashdot, and it took me a while to fully realise that people only listen when you don't get on your high horse, however much they deserve it.
Define "intrinsic right" for me. If it's in a legal sense, then obviously that's wrong. Copyright does allow for maintaining integrity. If it's in an ethical sense, then it's debatable, but you do seem to "understand why one would want to do that". If it's in a naturally inherent sense (i.e. that "art wants to be free" argument), then it's a crap reason. The most commonly enforced laws are against nature. It's our nature to steal, to hurt, to vandalise (for kicks), to leave doggy crap in the park, to generally think of ourselves over others. That's the whole point of the law, to offset our more selfish motivations.
I can't think of any other meanings of "intrinsic right".
I find it depressing that/. readership mods views they disagree with as flamebait and troll.
Which is why I think/. needs to allow posting and moderating on the same thread. All this current separation does is force people to disagree by moderating down comments with opposing views.
BTW, you have an opinion that is not popular here on/. You got modded down because you didn't lace the comment with provisions, niceties, and "I know the reason for this, but..." clauses. Basically, tread carefully in future.
Copyright, however, isn't about the possession of the object, it's the right to prevent anyone else from possessing a copy of that object.
It's more than that. It's also about maintaining artistic integrity of the work*. Some artists feel that they would not like their work cut and pasted into TV ads, or mixed into DJ mixes, or published in censored forms, etc. That is an ethical legacy, and it isn't about depriving the public for their benefit. For example, the Beach Boys' song "Good Vibrations" is currently being used here in a very annoying ad for an appliance store called the "Good Guys". They substituted in lyrics and made an atrocious jingle out of it. Personally, I would have listed that as the eighth deadly sin.
* This argument really doesn't apply to record labels.
It wouldn't fly. Record companies can't afford to lease copyrights from the artists. It gives the artist far too much leverage. The whole point is that the company supports the artist, pours capital into the artist, produces them and markets them. Do you think record companies could survive if the artist could break away as soon as they're famous and their contract expires?
Look, I like a good RIAA-bashing as much as the next slashdotter, but it would kill the industry. No-one in any position of importance is going to pass a law like that.
Let's not confuse parameterized expressions and limits.
I don't. I know the limits of the current system (no pun intended), but I think they deserved to be pushed. Zero is a real number, just like 1 or pi. All other real numbers can be substituted into the expression y=f(x)/g(x). The answer for x=0 can be obtained by simple interpolation. It's not like the point is undefined, as limits can prove that. We regard the products of limits as legitimate expressions, at least enough for us to use gradients of curves in practical mathematical applications.
So, why the lack of official recognition?
f you define h(t) = f(t)/g(t), where t is a member of the reals, well guess what? h(t) at t = infinity is not defined because T IS IN THE REALS. Infinity is NOT A REAL.
I could also substitute imaginary numbers in there (like you can do with most functions), and still get 3/2. It's not just real numbers.
I also protest the idea that Infinity is not a real number. Why is that? Because we can't possibly determine a definite value for it? If that's the case, I'd argue that other (officially "real") numbers share that property. We can't seem to get a definite value for pi, e, and other constants that are important, but that we cannot find a finite expression for. We can prove by induction that e = 1/(0!) + 1/(1!) + 1/(2!) + 1/(3!) +... but it isn't a finite expression. We can similarly define infinity as INFINITY = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... or as INFINITY = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +... or any of the infinite selection of ways to define infinity.
Look at it inductively. It's an established axiom that if we add two integers, we get an integer. If we keep adding integers to the accumulate integer, we will be getting a larger accumulate integer. The infinity that it produces should therefore be an integer, which is a subset of real numbers.
Infinity also shares its inability to be defined with zero. Zero, as I have already mentioned, can come in a variety of "sizes". You can get the 3*0 zero or the 2*0 zero or the (5+pi*i)*0 zero. The undefined nature of zero therefore prevents it from dividing any number, be it zero or anything else. If we define it, it will eliminate the problem. You could substitute any kind of zero into equations and evaluate accordingly. Letting n be the standard 0 (as we did before), we could define h(n), h(5n), h(6n^2), h(wn), and they would all equal 3/2, just like every other number that gets substituted into the equation.
Lithium is not volatile. Volatility is a relative measurement of boiling point. The lower the boiling point the more volatile the substance. The instability implication comes from volatile organic compounds, which are only flammable when in vapour form and are liberally combined with air.
Sorry. I know it isn't really the point, but I'm just not a fan of mincing terms.
What I'd like to see is: 25 years. One renewal for an additional 20. That gives 45 years total.
If we want to strike a balance between an artist's right to make a living off their IP and a healthy public domain, we need to make a copyright term that is long enough so that most records would be out of copyright by the time their sales drop to insignificant levels. Most music created these days have a store shelf life of (at absolute maximum) about 10 years. The exceptions (i.e. the classics) will be so ingrained into public culture that it would simply be copyright-holder greed at the expense of public culture.
I guess what I'm saying is that 45 years is far too long.
I could easily blame piracy on P2P software and fair use rights (which allow the copying of copyrighted content, thereby making it easier to pirate, etc, etc), but I'd just be modded -1 Troll.
Wake up. Price is justification to not buy into the market, not to pirate.
Look, it wasn't me, said the boy with the gun Sure I pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done Because life's been killing me ever since it begun You can't blame me cause I'm too young
You can't blame me, sure the killer was my son But I didn't teach him to pull the trigger of the gun It's the killing on his TV screen You can't blame me; it's those images he sees
Well, you can't blame me says the media man Well I wasn't the one who came up with the plan And I just point my camera at what the people want to see Man, it's a two way mirror and you can't blame me
You can't blame me says the singer of the song Or the maker of movie which he based his life on It's inly entertainment as anyone can see Smoke machines and make up, man, you can't blame me
It seems to me that terrorism is a bit like the child who constantly screams for attention. Sometimes it's best to let it be and don't give it any encouragement. If we leave terrorism alone (relatively), I reckon it'll become harder and harder to find people to hate the western world enough to attack civilians. If we pay too much attention, it gives them the impression that they are making a difference, and the negative nature of this attention gives them reason to believe themselves justified.
But you can't evaluate the expression AT ZERO, that's ludicrous. The function is continouous with a hole, and that's just the way it is.
It doesn't make sense. If you were to graph y=f(x)+g(x),y=f(x)-g(x),y=f(x)*g(x),y=(f(x))^(g(x) ), etc, they would all be continuous. Why, exactly, should division be the exception? The problem with zero and division is that it produces a glaring inconsistency in an otherwise very consistent system.
If you were to take my suggestion of an "absolute zero", and assign a letter to it (let's say n), you could simply evaluate f(n) as 3n, and g(n) as 2n. Divide them, and cancel out the n and you are left with 3/2, like every other value on the x axis produces. You are cancelling out the "zero-ness". It smooths out the hole, not just in the graph, but within the number system.
It's similar to infinity, which is a similarly undefined number. At any time, f(x) will be 1.5 times as big as g(x) (at zero too) and that continues into the infinite. As you graph f(x)/g(x), it still stays flat on the y=3/2 line, no matter how far you go. If you try substituting infinity into the functions, and then dividing them, all you will get is an undefined answer, despite the obvious answer extrapolated from the graph.
My point is, it just doesn't make sense. The system has room for improvement.
That's very much a matter of opinion. It is the government's job to protect you from life's dangers (to a certain extent). The government enforces certain standards, including safety. They try to protect you from eating rotten food (at least from public venues), from harm from other people, from unsafe buildings/buildings/natural phenomena, etc. There will always be a balance between liberty and law, and it's no use over-simplifying the situation.
As for this particular situation, there is no doubt that this kind of legislation is absolutely useless. If it were effective (OK, that's a bit of a stretch), I'd be against it. I'm personally against the "don't forgive and certainly don't forget" attitude towards any crime, sex offences included.
If you want proof, try solving X^2=4 in the same manner.
So, 2=-2? So therefore, 3=-3 (by multiplying both sides by 3/2)? And 4=-2 (by adding 1 to both sides)? And therefore 4=2?
I think I am just about to solve 99% of the paradoxes out there! I call it the Theory of Multiple Congruencies! Where any number can equal anything and everything your heart desires!
Slashdot Mirror
And those flamebait mods go to show that you can't engage in a carefully reasoned debate with opportunistic smugness.
FOSS is a practical product and a resource. The only reason why it thrives so well is that there big players who support it and benefit practically from it. Why buy other software, or develop your own from scratch, when you can build upon the FOSS code-base? Can you imagine a corporation contributing to composing or distributing a piece of music without demanding the copyright? Can you see them benefiting in any way?
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happen. I mean, what kind of market or industry would worsen with unprofitability? Well, I mean, apart from every single market that has become unprofitable in history. But I'm sure music will inspire dedicated composers to risk their financial futures in distributing their work.
Or, of course, they can rely on the Internet. Or, more accurately, the people who would be able to find your site and be prepared to pay for your music. Of course, those people are probably the most able to share out your music without permission or royalties...
Enter DRM! Ensuring we don't have to waste our precious data allowances on HD video!
Step 1: See car you want to steal
Do you know that there is RFID tags? If yes go to Step 4
Step 2: Steal car (hard in itself)
Step 3: Get caught
Stop Here
Step 4: Feel daunted by technological measures (as most people are)
Do you have the technology to duplicate the RFID tag? If yes go to Step 6
Step 5: Steal the car and get caught, or just don't bother
Stop Here
Step 6: Contemplate your time to steal the car
Can you replace the RFID in time?
etc, etc.
Not so simple, huh?
Maybe if everyone drove the speed limit, and the roads got completely congested, the roads would be safer, and more people would walk or take public transport, and help alleviate the two big environmental and health issues in America.
Or wrap the numberplate in tin foil.
Oh wait...
Yes. My gamecube did break and my N64 is controller-less.
Yes! Super Mario Kart, Mario Kart 64, and Mario Kart Advance are all very dated. It did expire because the new ones are simply more enjoyable. Sure, if you like them, buy a Wii. You'll get full backwards compatibility, and you can get the entire back catalogue, especially since you aren't impressed with recent games produced without such technical limitations. That's not even mentioning the completely new Wii controller.
Entertainment works like this. It doesn't matter how good your previous sources of entertainment, you still will need variation to stop your enjoyment becoming obsolete. Why don't you start criticising people for shelling out way too much money for the PS3 instead of making false rationalisations about the entertainment industry?
Allow me to hypothesise here. Let's just say for arguments sake that you're wrong, and that my theory that they mod irresponsibly comes from their inability to mod and post in the same discussion is right. I could take most of that paragraph and turn it around on you. I think that last paragraph could be called an unpleasant, (possibly) suppressive, reaction to the opinions of others. Your view could be considered (still in the hypothetical situation here) an unreasoned learned belief system. Not to mention you disagreed very directly to my belief that the moderation system is the problem, so it is "wrong" to you, and it provoked an unpleasant and (again, possibly) suppressive response.
I'm not trying to put you down, or anything like that. What I'm trying say is, take your own advice. Think about your opinion and seriously consider others. As it stands, my opinion brought upon and unpleasant response. Instead of reasoned debate with other people, you seemed to dismiss their arguments altogether, implying they "aren't really capable of thought and instead hold a unreasoned, learned belief system". The funny thing is, as I demonstrated before, they could easily dismiss your ideas the same way.
Amen to that, but they just won't listen to you if you keep the aggressive tone. I've expressed some unpopular views here at slashdot, and it took me a while to fully realise that people only listen when you don't get on your high horse, however much they deserve it.
Define "intrinsic right" for me. If it's in a legal sense, then obviously that's wrong. Copyright does allow for maintaining integrity. If it's in an ethical sense, then it's debatable, but you do seem to "understand why one would want to do that". If it's in a naturally inherent sense (i.e. that "art wants to be free" argument), then it's a crap reason. The most commonly enforced laws are against nature. It's our nature to steal, to hurt, to vandalise (for kicks), to leave doggy crap in the park, to generally think of ourselves over others. That's the whole point of the law, to offset our more selfish motivations.
I can't think of any other meanings of "intrinsic right".
BTW, you have an opinion that is not popular here on
For example, the Beach Boys' song "Good Vibrations" is currently being used here in a very annoying ad for an appliance store called the "Good Guys". They substituted in lyrics and made an atrocious jingle out of it. Personally, I would have listed that as the eighth deadly sin.
* This argument really doesn't apply to record labels.
...maybe some people want to maintain their work's integrity after death?
Oh wait. This is a corporate conglomerate of music labels designed solely for the purpose of making money off copyrights. Never mind.
Look, I like a good RIAA-bashing as much as the next slashdotter, but it would kill the industry. No-one in any position of importance is going to pass a law like that.
So, why the lack of official recognition?
I could also substitute imaginary numbers in there (like you can do with most functions), and still get 3/2. It's not just real numbers.
I also protest the idea that Infinity is not a real number. Why is that? Because we can't possibly determine a definite value for it? If that's the case, I'd argue that other (officially "real") numbers share that property. We can't seem to get a definite value for pi, e, and other constants that are important, but that we cannot find a finite expression for. We can prove by induction that e = 1/(0!) + 1/(1!) + 1/(2!) + 1/(3!) +
Look at it inductively. It's an established axiom that if we add two integers, we get an integer. If we keep adding integers to the accumulate integer, we will be getting a larger accumulate integer. The infinity that it produces should therefore be an integer, which is a subset of real numbers.
Infinity also shares its inability to be defined with zero. Zero, as I have already mentioned, can come in a variety of "sizes". You can get the 3*0 zero or the 2*0 zero or the (5+pi*i)*0 zero. The undefined nature of zero therefore prevents it from dividing any number, be it zero or anything else. If we define it, it will eliminate the problem. You could substitute any kind of zero into equations and evaluate accordingly. Letting n be the standard 0 (as we did before), we could define h(n), h(5n), h(6n^2), h(wn), and they would all equal 3/2, just like every other number that gets substituted into the equation.
Sorry. I know it isn't really the point, but I'm just not a fan of mincing terms.
I guess what I'm saying is that 45 years is far too long.
I could easily blame piracy on P2P software and fair use rights (which allow the copying of copyrighted content, thereby making it easier to pirate, etc, etc), but I'd just be modded -1 Troll.
Wake up. Price is justification to not buy into the market, not to pirate.
It's not a matter of who's a sheep, rather who is your shepherd.
Look, it wasn't me, said the boy with the gun
Sure I pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done
Because life's been killing me ever since it begun
You can't blame me cause I'm too young
You can't blame me, sure the killer was my son
But I didn't teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
It's the killing on his TV screen
You can't blame me; it's those images he sees
Well, you can't blame me says the media man
Well I wasn't the one who came up with the plan
And I just point my camera at what the people want to see
Man, it's a two way mirror and you can't blame me
You can't blame me says the singer of the song
Or the maker of movie which he based his life on
It's inly entertainment as anyone can see
Smoke machines and make up, man, you can't blame me
--Jack Johnson
It seems to me that terrorism is a bit like the child who constantly screams for attention. Sometimes it's best to let it be and don't give it any encouragement. If we leave terrorism alone (relatively), I reckon it'll become harder and harder to find people to hate the western world enough to attack civilians. If we pay too much attention, it gives them the impression that they are making a difference, and the negative nature of this attention gives them reason to believe themselves justified.
If you were to take my suggestion of an "absolute zero", and assign a letter to it (let's say n), you could simply evaluate f(n) as 3n, and g(n) as 2n. Divide them, and cancel out the n and you are left with 3/2, like every other value on the x axis produces. You are cancelling out the "zero-ness". It smooths out the hole, not just in the graph, but within the number system.
It's similar to infinity, which is a similarly undefined number. At any time, f(x) will be 1.5 times as big as g(x) (at zero too) and that continues into the infinite. As you graph f(x)/g(x), it still stays flat on the y=3/2 line, no matter how far you go. If you try substituting infinity into the functions, and then dividing them, all you will get is an undefined answer, despite the obvious answer extrapolated from the graph.
My point is, it just doesn't make sense. The system has room for improvement.
That's very much a matter of opinion. It is the government's job to protect you from life's dangers (to a certain extent). The government enforces certain standards, including safety. They try to protect you from eating rotten food (at least from public venues), from harm from other people, from unsafe buildings/buildings/natural phenomena, etc. There will always be a balance between liberty and law, and it's no use over-simplifying the situation.
As for this particular situation, there is no doubt that this kind of legislation is absolutely useless. If it were effective (OK, that's a bit of a stretch), I'd be against it. I'm personally against the "don't forgive and certainly don't forget" attitude towards any crime, sex offences included.
I think I am just about to solve 99% of the paradoxes out there! I call it the Theory of Multiple Congruencies! Where any number can equal anything and everything your heart desires!
Or it could all be a bad, bad joke.