What could cause such an event?
Mars getting hit by a fscking great asteroid a few km across?
7408 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
> Under UK law, theft is defined in the Theft Act 1968. Go and read it. You will find that you are simply wrong.
OK, I've read it, and I still disagree. Some excerpts:
---
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it
Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation,
“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest
A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights
---
It is clear that usurping someones right to make copies of their work, with the intention of treating such a copy as if it were your own, amounts to theft.
"I am very carefully and deliberately making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft - which is a true statement"
I disagree. Your statement would only be true if the value of a copy did not depend on the number of copies that exist, which is rarely the case. In practice, making an unauthorized copy will reduce the value of authorized copies, or will reduce the market for sales of authorized copies.
In practice there is no difference between making an unauthorized copy of something, and stealing an authorized copy, the net effect is the same. Both are theft of property.
The repeated comments here that it isn't theft because making a copy doesn't deprive the owner of the original are disingenuous. The situation is called *copy*right not because it affects the original, but because it affects the right to make copies of that original. It is theft of those copies which is at issue.
When a band plays a song live at a concert, it is clear that no amount of copying of that performance is going to detract from the experience of those who paid to see it live. The original has indeed arguably lost nothing.
However, copyright allows the band to make THEIR OWN COPIES of that performance, and to distribute them for money. The availability of unauthorized copies will obviously reduce the number of copies that the band will sell, and could depress the price of those copies. In that sense it is very much theft, since making 500 unauthorized copies and selling them yourself is the same as breaking into the band's warehouse and stealing 500 legitimate copies to sell. Just because there are a potentially unlimited number of copies avaiable doesn't make stealing them less of a crime.
There is the argument that someone who takes a pirate copy isn't necessarily someone who would have bought a legitimate copy, so the losses cannot be equated to 100% of the unauthorized copies. That is true, but it is equally true that *some* of those pirate copies will correspond to a lost sale of a legitimate copy, so the loss is not 0% either.
Telephone exchanges have used -48v supplies pretty much since the beginning. It's high enough to power several miles of cable, yet low enough not to be dangerous. It's the one power supply that you can guarantee to find in any telco rack.
As to price, equipment that complies with NEBS Level 3 certification will never be cheap. It's specc'ed for fire resistance, earthquake survivability, lightning strikes, etc. It's not unknown for such equipment to still be functioning normally when the racks are lying on their side in a pile of rubble after the exchange building has collapsed on them. Try that with a standard PC! :)
Correct about the Limerick/Cork, my mistake. The problem with the name isn't that Facebook says "no", but that it says 'no, this is offensive".
Then again, this was reported in the BT, a newspaper whose comment forum software turned Saturday into Sa****ay... Who knows how they'd have coped with a comment about Arsenal :)
I really wanted an Atom, or later a BBC B, but by that stage I was at Uni, and had discovered that I had easy access to Apple II's (well, ITT 2020s really, with that bizarre graphics conversion), a VAX, and several ICL mainframes. It was hard to justify spending £200 - £400 on a gadget of my own when I could do far more on the other systems. Maybe if I'd been a couple of years younger when they came out...
I ended up playing with 68K assembler on Force VME boards, now that was *real* computing :)
Stuff the turkey with moist stuffing, including halved limes. Cover it with rashers of streaky bacon, some butter, then wrap it in foil. Put it in a very low oven just before going to bed on Christmas Eve. Wake up on "the day" to a wonderful aroma of succulent moist perfectly-roasted turkey.
I wish I hadn't thought of that. It's hours until lunchtime...
Cheers
That's what gets me about this "Save The Planet" crap. The planet was here before humanity arrived, it will be here after humanity has gone. "Saving" it just means the selfish "we like it the way we've got it now, so let's stop it from changing any more". Why is that any more scientifically acceptable than saying "hey, it's changing, lets see what happens next".
There are sound reasons not to squander finite resources like oil, for which there are better uses than just burning it off, but "saving the planet" isn't one of them.
Must see if my PDP-11 will boot, haven't tried in years. Only a teeny one, I'm afraid, in the deskside tower, but...
Now if only I could find RSX-11 for it, instead of the Ultrix it's running. I still have the RSX distribution on RL02, but no drive, and only have RT11 on floppies. Anyone got any ideas?
Wish I'd managed to find a VAX...
1: Someone invents a nice, simple new language that concentrates on the essentials and leaves out the unnecessary stuff that makes older languages hard to use.
2: Over time people realise that the "unnecessary stuff " was there for a reason, so it gets bolted back on as an ugly wart. Eventually the clean new language is a warty, twisted mess that is just as impenetrable as the ones it replaced.
3: Then someone invents yet another simple new language that leaves out different "unnecessary stuff".
4: Goto* 2:
*Yes, Prof. Dijkstra, but it always gets put back in, eventually.
They most certainly are not the same thing. When you are looking at a true 3D scene, some objects are close, some are distant. As your gaze moves between them your eyes have to move & refocus. A stereoscopic view is flat, your focus point is in one place, the screeen. That is why some people (not me, it seems) get nauseous or have headaches, their brain expects to have to change focus, but their eyes don't need to. It's a similar sensory disconnect to that which generates seasickness.
Creating parallax via head tracking is fine with individual goggles, as used in expensive VR simulations, but with a single source projected onto one screen, there's not much you can do when there are multiple viewers. I also disagree that it's not important, even quite small movements of your head generate noticeable parallax in the real world, especially if the image is supposed to be something like 200+ degree immersive.
As to generating it with a computer, it's easy for animated stuff, just takes lots of power. Post-processing flat real-life stuff is likely to give crap results, agreed, just like "colorizing" old moves did. That's probably why the animated stuff like Avatar gets the rave reviews. Of course, just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should*, especially if you don't take the time & money to do it really well.
Overall I still believe that it's as much of a gimmick today as it has been every other time it's been tried, and is only being pushed by the TV companies because they need a new way to get people to replace their TVs, since they're running out of steam after widescreen, flatscreen, and HD.
It's stereoscopic. Like 1960's ViewMaster toys.
Maybe when 3D actually gets here, holographic, where you don't need glasses and can get real parallax effects when you move, it might stay. This current round is just an attempt to cash in on a single special efect that's too easy to do (badly) with a computer.
> Why are they spending money on projects such as this in a time of huge economic crisis?
There are several reasons. One is that the amount they are spending is petty cash compared to the amounts involved in the world economy. Giving NASA's budget to the banks would be as much help as trying to calm down a volcano by pissing on it.
Secondly, economies and civilisations end up in crisis when they stagnate and start looking inwards instead of outwards. It has happened many times over history. The day when we stop spending money on discovery and exploration which *might* be useful, and instead spend it purely on patching up the old systems that we've had for years, is the day that the western economy dies and a new one takes over. I for one am delighted to see that some people have the vision to spend time and money on this, I'm way too old to start learning Mandarin or Korean now.
> What happens if a nuclear powered spacecraft breaks up on launch/re-entry. Where does the fallout go?
The obvious answer is that it would be designed so that anything which contained nuclear material would survive the break-up. One proposal is to ship a reactor (which is fragile) up empty, then send the fuel up in small, tough canisters which wouldn't suffer serious problems even in a serious launch accident. The canisters would only be opened to fuel the reactor once all was safely in space.
There are always solutions, if people have the vision and courage to look for them.
Its a classic problem with free software. They don't have a revenue stream from supporting customers, and making small changes that the customers want, yet they have to keep shipping new versions to keep up the hype and prevent the latest entrant from being "flavour of the month". The result: bloat, with new features added just to be seen to be doing something.
I like Firefox, I especially like AdBlock, yet I find myself going to IE more & more often these days :(