Comment a national OS called... (Score 2) 206
MohammeDOS?
Comment Brain and brain! What is brain?! (Score 1) 235
It is controller, is it not?
Comment For the record... (Score 1) 585
it should be the "i-don't-want-to-go- _on_ -the cart" dept.
Comment It's inspector Kemp... (Score 1) 325
following in his grandfathers vootshteps, vootshteps, vootshteps!
Comment If you're serious about it... (Score 2, Informative) 279
you might want to start with a guide like "How to Write & Publish A Scientific Paper" by Robert Day (ISBN-13: 978-1573561655).
Then search for the appropriate journal. One suggestion is: GPS Solutions (published by Springer),
http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/geophysics/journal/10291
Manuscript submission instructions and forms at: http://www.springer.com/journal/10291/submission
Hope it works out for you!
Looking Back At Dungeons & Dragons 189
An anonymous reader sends in a nostalgic piece about Dungeons & Dragons and the influence it's had on games and gamers for the past 36 years. Quoting:
"Maybe there was something in the air during the early '70s. Maybe it was historically inevitable. But it seems way more than convenient coincidence that Gygax and Arneson got their first packet of rules for D&D out the door in 1974, the same year Nolan Bushnell managed to cobble together a little arcade machine called Pong. We've never had fun quite the same way since. Looking back, these two events set today's world of gaming into motion — the Romulus and Remus of modern game civilization. For the rest of forever, we would sit around and argue whether games should let us do more or tell us better stories."
Comment "Belief" is irrelevent here (Score 1) 1747
The whole point of science is that no belief is required. Science is a method, a process by which we hope to learn something about reality. Nobody has to resort to believing anything, just look at the data. People can and will sometimes disagree about the correct interpretation of the data, but that's very different from "believing". As stated several times above by others, the real problem here is people who know little about the scientific process being very loud about their uninformed opinions.
US Air Force Buying Another 2,200 PS3s 144
bleedingpegasus sends word that the US Air Force will be grabbing up 2,200 new PlayStation 3 consoles for research into supercomputing. They already have a cluster made from 336 of the old-style (non-Slim) consoles, which they've used for a variety of purposes, including "processing multiple radar images into higher resolution composite images (known as synthetic aperture radar image formation), high-def video processing, and 'neuromorphic computing.'" According to the Justification Review Document (DOC), "Once the hardware configuration is implemented, software code will be developed in-house for cluster implementation utilizing a Linux-based operating software."
Scientists Say a Dirty Child Is a Healthy Child 331
Researchers from the School of Medicine at the University of California have shown that the more germs a child is exposed to, the better their immune system in later life. Their study found that keeping a child's skin too clean impaired the skin's ability to heal itself. From the article: "'These germs are actually good for us,' said Professor Richard Gallo, who led the research. Common bacterial species, known as staphylococci, which can cause inflammation when under the skin, are 'good bacteria' when on the surface, where they can reduce inflammation."
Submission + - First Collisions at LHC (symmetrymagazine.org)
heavyion writes: Also some video of the ALICE control room:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOJvgatf2VY&feature=autofb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOJvgatf2VY&feature=autofb
Comment Details, details (Score 1) 451
Just pointing out that the text (and voice-over) states that downloading files without payment is stealing, not just any download. It's mainly trying to make the point that P2P can be a security risk. I understand it's more fun to criticize everything the government does, but if you ran a company with nearly 3 million employees wouldn't you want to provide some guidance as to when their activities put them in legal jeopardy or compromise the network? No? Okay, how about if your company controls nuclear weapons?
Comment Re:Entitlement Mentality, again (Score 1) 500
what gives you the right to something I create?
You have a legal right, but that is about it. You sound like the slave owner who asks "What gives you the right to force me to release my slaves?" and thinks he has the best argument in the world.
Your comparison is severely flawed and even offensive, perhaps intentionally. Anything I create is a product of my mind, a slave is not something I created nor something I have any right to "own". You cannot own another person. Someone could reasonably bring up a discussion of artificial intelligence here but I'll digress on that.
Another simple question, what incentive remains for me to create anything
If you can't make money on it, stop creating and go do something else.
That is exactly the point. If others are allowed to immediately steal anything I (or anyone else) produce how will any money be made?
The benefits to society for not having copyright/patent laws is huge.
* Workers move to sectors where their work is valued enough that they get paid without having to rely on monopoly protections.
* People can build on previous knowledge without getting sued.
* Everyone in society can access all knowledge that has ever been produced at little to no cost.
Sure, the production in some areas may go down and some types of production may even die, but that isn't a bad thing. If supply decreases because content producers move to other sectors, demand for new works will go up and people will find new ways to make it work. It just won't be ways that rely on restricting the copying of zeros and ones.
The "society" you describe provides no incentive for someone to spend a large part of their life working to develop something new. Why bother? Someone else will do it and then you can claim it as yours after the work is done, right? The problem is not "copying ones and zeros" as you say. The creativity, the thought, the hard work comes in knowing in what order the ones and zeros must be placed! I'm happy to pay for someone to do that and would never expect someone to do it for free. They may choose to do so, but it must be their choice.
Comment Re:Entitlement Mentality, again (Score 1) 500
These really are simple questions.
---A simple question, what gives you the right to something I create?
The Constitution gives that right.
Not until the copyright protection prescribed by law expires. You and I may have some agreement about shortening that length of time, but the idea that you or anyone else has an inherent "right" to something I've created is simply false. As proof I offer the following. I have in mind a creative work, let's say a poem, but I've not written it down. There are only three ways you can get it from me, you can buy it, I could tell it to you free of charge, or you could threaten to kill me if I don't give it to you (i.e. steal it by force). Which one of these is not protected by the Constitution?
---Another simple question, what incentive remains for me to create anything if you will only steal it and say you had a "right" to it from the beginning?
Money is rather a bad incentive. In terms of psychological incentives, wanting to create for creating sake is much higher. And hence, the art forms that would rarely ever sell, but are created nonetheless. However, by cutting off money also cuts off the 99% of the works that rely on selling to the lowest common denominator.
And no, the second question is not a simple one. We're talking about money vs. a persons want to create.
That's great, but it's hard to eat on pursuing higher incentives. I also think you view of money as an incentive is very cynical. What else can you offer an artist who has created something you really want? Wouldn't you be willing to offer even more money for something you like better? This line of thought does not remove or diminish an artist's desire to create something great. On the contrary, it rewards it!
And as a question to you: Why should we allow artists who hold copyrights able to sell them off? Shouldn't artists be afforded all the fruits of their labor?
It is the artist who holds the right to the work. If I correctly understand your question, I would say it is buy selling their work that an artist enjoys the fruits thereof. The person or people that buy the work enjoy it as well and everyone benefits. If the artist would prefer to give it away that is also their perogative. But ask yourself, if you remove money as an incentive what is left? Would you spend your life making things, useful things, beautiful things, only to have them taken from you by someone claiming "rights" to them? Someone unwilling or unable to create those things on their own?
Comment Re:Entitlement Mentality, again (Score 1) 500
Copyright encourages development by protecting a creative work from theft. The benefit to society comes in having wonderfully creative works that you can buy.
Man, you really don't understand how copyright works in the US. In exchange for creating a work, you are provided a time-limited monopoly on that work. At the end of the time period, the work falls into the public domain. The benefit to society is that works are created and become public-use after the creator has had a chance to reap some benefit.
Under copyright, you are not obligated to distribute or license said work (there are some minor exceptions regarding compulsory licensing for music, etc.) You may camp on it to your heart's content. However, at the end of the copyright term, you can't use force-of-law to prohibit others' use of the work. The benefit to society has nothing to do with "consumerism."
You did not answer either of my questions. I'll ask a different one, but the other two remain open. Where is the "benefit to society" when those who create choose to stop being creative because it is no longer profitable and protected from theft?
Comment Re:Entitlement Mentality, again (Score 1) 500
If this sounds extreme, consider the opposite side. A musician/artist/whoever has a backed-by-force-of-law monopoly on some work he did.
Absolutely! After all he/she created it!
Copyright is intended to benefit society by encouraging development of creative works (says so in the US Constitution, I can't say about it elsewhere.)
Copyright encourages development by protecting a creative work from theft. The benefit to society comes in having wonderfully creative works that you can buy.
So at some point, society is supposed to benefit. Exactly when does that happen if the originator of the work can camp on it for his entire lifetime plus 75 years?
It happens 75 years after the artist dies, as you said. Until then the work is not yours unless you pay for it! Perhaps 75 years is too long and should be shortened by law. But the law exists to protect the artist's rights to their creation, not some imagined "right" of society to their work.
You and I have been swindled out of our part of the bargain - the work is supposed to drop into the community for use by others. Extension of copyright has stolen that from us, and yes, you have been deprived of access to something, so "stealing" is appropriately used.
A simple question, what gives you the right to something I create? Another simple question, what incentive remains for me to create anything if you will only steal it and say you had a "right" to it from the beginning?
