I don't seem to grasp that black holes can become mobile. I can not imagine something would be able to exert enough force on the black hole to actually accelerate it.
Other than the obvious everything-attracts-everything-else, also remember that black holes don't magically appear from nothing. Whatever matter initially created the black hole was most likely moving, and that momentum doesn't go anywhere.
Wow, I never did understand that bit in the polka. It might be kind of sad that in the last few Weird Al albums, I've never heard most of the original songs. I'm getting old, huh?
Yes, because otherwise those works won't get made, and everyone knows it. If the only way to get new content is to pay for it, then what other choice do you have if you care about new content?
You can wait for someone else to send in those last few dollars to meet the artist's goal, but it's a game of chicken. Sooner or later you'll realize that the other guy isn't going to pay, and then it becomes a question of which one of you cares more about seeing the work created.
I think you may be vastly overestimating the general population. I'd certainly be happy if you're right, but my cynicism is overpowering my optimism on this one.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting) I may have gotten the band another fan. Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
Now, if you put us both away in prison for a few years... guess how many concerts we're going to and how much merchandise we're buying that time?
Except concert tickets and merchandise would give money to the band instead of the record label, so the label will still sue you, since you aren't getting them any more money.
Cold Case, NCIS, Bones, and others seem to be surviving by giving me stuff for free. Just because YOU have not thought of a way to make money with free and open bit torrent, that does not mean that no one will.
They do it by selling advertising, which most people around here seem to be almost as strongly against. While music is relatively cheap and easy for a good amateur group to produce, television requires a much larger budget, which means viewers will need to pay somehow, either by cash or advertisement views.
And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?
How about payment for work done?
Will anyone pay them to do the work when there's almost no chance of even getting the money back, let alone making any kind of profit? Will enough people who view/watch/listen to their work pay them when they don't have to? The goal of copyright is to keep artists producing work, and the means of achieving that goal is trying to ensure that they can make enough money to live. The current laws, especially the copyright period, have certainly gotten far out of hand, and I certainly don't support the RIAA's scattergun theory of suing people, but I still support artists (and not necessarily their grandchildren and record label executive overlords) being able to make money from their work.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being a programmer. Just as a good tech gets pissed off when he sees a 'nail technician', real engineers laugh at the IT crowd.
No engineering degree = no engineer.
There's a difference between a programmer and a software engineer. Just like being able to nail pieces of wood together doesn't make you an architect, being able to write out a piece of code that does what someone else told you it has to do does not magically grant you the ability to design large or complex software systems.
Kinda like how stewardesses are now called flight attendants, even though historically a steward was in no way a menial job. Stewards were probably one of the highest, if not the highest, ranking non-nobles in the household.
Obama is still right of center on economic issues, he only seems to be socialist compared to the far-right politicians that we have. Take a look at where some US politicians really are. Anyone that thinks Obama is a socialist doesn't really understand what socialism means. Go to some more centrist countries in Europe and you'll see that socialists there are really socialists, what the US calls liberals are moderate conservatives, and what the US calls conservatives are raving lunatics.
If any Libertarian voted for Obama and expected him to carry out Libertarian ideals, that person will be sorely disappointed.
That person would also be an idiot. I voted for Obama, but I never expected him to be much of a libertarian, other than relative to Bush. There are almost no libertarians in US politics, just like there are almost no socialists in US politics (despite what Fox News wants to believe). All we really have are authoritarian capitalists (e.g. Obama) and very authoritarian capitalists (e.g. Bush).
Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property
In theory, patents and copyrights are about both. Promoting innovation is the goal, and protecting intellectual property for a limited time is the means to achieving that goal. The current implementation might be a bit off (read: very broken), but the goal is supposed to be encouraging inventors and artists to continue inventing and creating art.
does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?
That's because judges generally don't have to worry about making decisions that might piss off the religious zealots or super-hippies and cost them the next election.
In that case, the rubber itself could not be patented, since it obviously had already been invented (or discovered, if it occurs naturally), but the new method of synthesizing the rubber could be patented. I would guess that this is what is meant in the law by "process"- a new process to create/manufacture some material or machine, not a method of conducting business that doesn't really involve creating any new material or device.
I would hope that important government departments have redundant connections with each other. If there's only a single piece of fiber connecting the White House to the Pentagon, someone with a clue needs to take over running government infrastructure. If any enemy nation is capable of cutting every physical communications line and jamming all wireless signals in our nation's capital city, there's a fairly high chance that we're already screwed.
I'm pretty sure owning a motor home would make you considered not homeless. Living in long-term motels isn't really much different than living in an apartment. Not owning a piece of land does not equal being homeless.
I decided to actually read the article for a change, just so I could get the primary source for the quotation before passing it along to people. I'm glad I did, because I discovered that it's just a parody piece. As nuts as the Scientologists are, and as good as the satire is, we really need to be careful about spreading this quotation around as if it were real.
Convert to what, Judaism? If that's what you meant, you've either been talking to someone that doesn't have a clue or someone that's in the ultra-Orthodox minority that refuses to accept conversions for whatever reason.
We can't. The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.
Just to make sure that this is directly pointed out, Sotomayor is not being nominated for Chief Justice. That would be John Roberts, who was appointed only a couple years ago, and will likely remain Chief Justice for somewhere around 20 years.
I'd say yes, it is, because of what it sounds like (e.g. bang). The worst I can think of for Google is ogle, which I think most people would consider quite a bit more tame.
The Talmud had both Hebrew and Aramaic, I would guess depending on the writer. As for the Zohar, I don't think that would be considered a fundamental text. It would certainly rank below the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) and the Talmud, and possibly even below the writings of quite a few scholars, depending on whom you ask.
Granted, but unless you're a college graduate (and even that assumes a lot), you'll probably have trouble understanding the text without intermediaries and Bible study sessions. Most believers barely touch the Bible, and they're content with a fairy-tale-like understanding of the Bible: everyone knows David and Goliath, Jonah and the Whale/BigFish, Passion of the Christ, etc. However, once the faithful start babbling about the nature of the Trinity or whether the 6 days in Genesis were literal 24-hour days or metaphorical epochs, they're in counting-the-number-of-angels-that-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin land, which is just as theologically insane as anything Scientology has come up with.
Have you ever looked at a modern Chumash (book form of the Torah, from the Hebrew word for five [books of the Torah])? A good number of the pages have more commentary and explanation than Torah text.
Slashdot Mirror
Tweet means (or meant) nothing in the context of the internet.
Nothing at all like the word "web", huh?
I don't seem to grasp that black holes can become mobile. I can not imagine something would be able to exert enough force on the black hole to actually accelerate it.
Other than the obvious everything-attracts-everything-else, also remember that black holes don't magically appear from nothing. Whatever matter initially created the black hole was most likely moving, and that momentum doesn't go anywhere.
Wow, I never did understand that bit in the polka. It might be kind of sad that in the last few Weird Al albums, I've never heard most of the original songs. I'm getting old, huh?
Yes, because otherwise those works won't get made, and everyone knows it. If the only way to get new content is to pay for it, then what other choice do you have if you care about new content?
You can wait for someone else to send in those last few dollars to meet the artist's goal, but it's a game of chicken. Sooner or later you'll realize that the other guy isn't going to pay, and then it becomes a question of which one of you cares more about seeing the work created.
I think you may be vastly overestimating the general population. I'd certainly be happy if you're right, but my cynicism is overpowering my optimism on this one.
I'm a content provider. I make games and sell them.
By the parent's argument, then, you would be considered a content producer, not simply a distribution middleman.
How about considering that by sharing a song with my friend (btw you're not even allowed to share a headphone since you didn't pay for public broadcasting) I may have gotten the band another fan. Or exposed them to a larger audience, which in turn breeds hte selling of concert tickets and merchandise sales.
... guess how many concerts we're going to and how much merchandise we're buying that time?
Now, if you put us both away in prison for a few years
Except concert tickets and merchandise would give money to the band instead of the record label, so the label will still sue you, since you aren't getting them any more money.
Cold Case, NCIS, Bones, and others seem to be surviving by giving me stuff for free. Just because YOU have not thought of a way to make money with free and open bit torrent, that does not mean that no one will.
They do it by selling advertising, which most people around here seem to be almost as strongly against. While music is relatively cheap and easy for a good amateur group to produce, television requires a much larger budget, which means viewers will need to pay somehow, either by cash or advertisement views.
And how do they get paid if anyone can replicate their content for free?
How about payment for work done?
Will anyone pay them to do the work when there's almost no chance of even getting the money back, let alone making any kind of profit? Will enough people who view/watch/listen to their work pay them when they don't have to? The goal of copyright is to keep artists producing work, and the means of achieving that goal is trying to ensure that they can make enough money to live. The current laws, especially the copyright period, have certainly gotten far out of hand, and I certainly don't support the RIAA's scattergun theory of suing people, but I still support artists (and not necessarily their grandchildren and record label executive overlords) being able to make money from their work.
Look, there is nothing wrong with being a programmer. Just as a good tech gets pissed off when he sees a 'nail technician', real engineers laugh at the IT crowd.
No engineering degree = no engineer.
There's a difference between a programmer and a software engineer. Just like being able to nail pieces of wood together doesn't make you an architect, being able to write out a piece of code that does what someone else told you it has to do does not magically grant you the ability to design large or complex software systems.
Kinda like how stewardesses are now called flight attendants, even though historically a steward was in no way a menial job. Stewards were probably one of the highest, if not the highest, ranking non-nobles in the household.
far to the left of mainstream politics
Obama is still right of center on economic issues, he only seems to be socialist compared to the far-right politicians that we have. Take a look at where some US politicians really are. Anyone that thinks Obama is a socialist doesn't really understand what socialism means. Go to some more centrist countries in Europe and you'll see that socialists there are really socialists, what the US calls liberals are moderate conservatives, and what the US calls conservatives are raving lunatics.
If any Libertarian voted for Obama and expected him to carry out Libertarian ideals, that person will be sorely disappointed.
That person would also be an idiot. I voted for Obama, but I never expected him to be much of a libertarian, other than relative to Bush. There are almost no libertarians in US politics, just like there are almost no socialists in US politics (despite what Fox News wants to believe). All we really have are authoritarian capitalists (e.g. Obama) and very authoritarian capitalists (e.g. Bush).
Patents are not about promoting innovation, they are about protecting intellectual property
In theory, patents and copyrights are about both. Promoting innovation is the goal, and protecting intellectual property for a limited time is the means to achieving that goal. The current implementation might be a bit off (read: very broken), but the goal is supposed to be encouraging inventors and artists to continue inventing and creating art.
does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?
That's because judges generally don't have to worry about making decisions that might piss off the religious zealots or super-hippies and cost them the next election.
In that case, the rubber itself could not be patented, since it obviously had already been invented (or discovered, if it occurs naturally), but the new method of synthesizing the rubber could be patented. I would guess that this is what is meant in the law by "process"- a new process to create/manufacture some material or machine, not a method of conducting business that doesn't really involve creating any new material or device.
Google is raising birds, too?
For several years now.
I would hope that important government departments have redundant connections with each other. If there's only a single piece of fiber connecting the White House to the Pentagon, someone with a clue needs to take over running government infrastructure. If any enemy nation is capable of cutting every physical communications line and jamming all wireless signals in our nation's capital city, there's a fairly high chance that we're already screwed.
I'm pretty sure owning a motor home would make you considered not homeless. Living in long-term motels isn't really much different than living in an apartment. Not owning a piece of land does not equal being homeless.
I decided to actually read the article for a change, just so I could get the primary source for the quotation before passing it along to people. I'm glad I did, because I discovered that it's just a parody piece. As nuts as the Scientologists are, and as good as the satire is, we really need to be careful about spreading this quotation around as if it were real.
...they'll come back with a shopping cart full of poptarts and cereal.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Convert to what, Judaism? If that's what you meant, you've either been talking to someone that doesn't have a clue or someone that's in the ultra-Orthodox minority that refuses to accept conversions for whatever reason.
We can't. The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section.
Just to make sure that this is directly pointed out, Sotomayor is not being nominated for Chief Justice. That would be John Roberts, who was appointed only a couple years ago, and will likely remain Chief Justice for somewhere around 20 years.
I'd say yes, it is, because of what it sounds like (e.g. bang). The worst I can think of for Google is ogle, which I think most people would consider quite a bit more tame.
The Talmud had both Hebrew and Aramaic, I would guess depending on the writer. As for the Zohar, I don't think that would be considered a fundamental text. It would certainly rank below the entire Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) and the Talmud, and possibly even below the writings of quite a few scholars, depending on whom you ask.
Granted, but unless you're a college graduate (and even that assumes a lot), you'll probably have trouble understanding the text without intermediaries and Bible study sessions. Most believers barely touch the Bible, and they're content with a fairy-tale-like understanding of the Bible: everyone knows David and Goliath, Jonah and the Whale/BigFish, Passion of the Christ, etc. However, once the faithful start babbling about the nature of the Trinity or whether the 6 days in Genesis were literal 24-hour days or metaphorical epochs, they're in counting-the-number-of-angels-that-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin land, which is just as theologically insane as anything Scientology has come up with.
Have you ever looked at a modern Chumash (book form of the Torah, from the Hebrew word for five [books of the Torah])? A good number of the pages have more commentary and explanation than Torah text.