Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
I do acknowledge, though, that there is a real problem with today image processing software such as Photoshop. It is possible to edit a photo of a real child so that it is impossible to know its origin - a real photo depicting someone or an original drawing.
If it's that hard to tell, the point of making any original photos is moot. Unless these edited pictures are just a form of encryption, and the pedos then reverse the photoshop filters on their end... but still, that's no different from distributing encrypted CP, so what's the issue?
I see two problems with your analogy. Crashing a car is far more expensive than producing CP, so much so that it would be hard to justify ever doing it intentionally.
I don't know, I imagine all the underworld stuff involved with CP production is pretty expensive.
In addition, people don't make money off car crash photos; they do make money from CP.
But what if people made money off car crash photos, what would you think of the analogy then? With respect to the supposed implausibility of a car crash fetish.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_(1996_film)
Evolution, in comparison, explains the 'why' completely.
To be accurate (at least, as far as I know), evolution doesn't address the why at all - it leaves that up to other fields (which do so sufficiently). Evolution merely explains the *what* - that is, what happens.
To paraphrase, evolution by itself is rather weak, since it's mainly rules based on evidence. The strength of evolution comes when combined with other related fields, as they appear to confirm the conclusions drawn by evolution. The same is true for the big bang theory which, when combined with other stuff such as inflation, seems to paint a universe consistent with our own.
Also, cosmic background radiation. Ha!
I am not sure if this is how they measure, but Google makes some tools for site owners to check speed and it would be logical that they use something like this.
(Similar to YSlow)
Also, Google Webmaster Tools has a Site Performance section (under labs) which may have something to do with this.
Plagiarism? I watched Avatar for the graphics. Not for the plot or idea. A frigging computer program could generate the plotline/ideas.
It resembles other works as much as the other works resemble each other.
What next? Some pizza company suing another pizza company for making their pizza taste like pizzas?
Cheesy stuff has been done for ages.
I doubt a Michelin chef is ever going to claim Frozen Supermarket Pizza Co made a billion dollars ripping off his recipe for melted cheese, pepperoni and dough ("invented" back when he was young and thought he was great).
FWIW, most inventors who patent stuff are like 6 year old kids who just came up with the innovative idea for a ham and cheese sandwich.
This guy here must be pretty disappointed at how stupid we all still are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Engelbart#Anecdotal_Notes
Too bad for him, humanity hasn't booted to the next stage yet. That's his dream I think. I doubt he's so disappointed that he didn't make billions from the mouse.
 There are computer programs that invent stuff - provide a bunch of parameters and they can vary them to find various "interesting" points.
From a slightly older article on the same blog:
The load time data is derived from aggregated information sent by users of your site who have installed the Google Toolbar and opted-in to its enhanced features.
So this isn't quite as susceptible to people playing games with Googlebot as it might appear.
And we all know what it really is.
Protect your system as good as you can, firewalls, backups, whatever, or just rely on your own obscurity, and publish!
Act surprised, act I-told-you-so, be outraged with whatever happens, and then - in few days - install a patch.
The Apollo program was unique in many ways. One of which is that you can look up at night and see the moon. I'm all in favor of establishing a permanent base on the moon: the idea that you might live up on that white ball sparks imagination. It would provide a good testbed for true deep space manned exploration, as well as a good launching/supply pad for such missions. Mars will NOT duplicate the moon experience: it doesn't have the "look up and see" component, and I think a permanent colony will be far more inspiring to folks than the "Wow, an astronaut set foot on object X and made a speech!". The idea that we can LIVE long-term somewhere other than Earth is inspiring -- the idea that we might commute there is even more inspiring -- and the idea that we can follow up on exploration (the Moon) with settlement is also inspiring.
BUT, robotic missions can be inspiring, too. Think of the Mars rovers, Hubble, Voyager, etc, which all spark the imagination. You just have to pick the right kinds of missions, which would not all be "make a radar map of object X" -- useful for science no doubt, but not very "I'm going to become an engineer/scientist/space-worker".
Read science fiction and see how often manned exploration is preceded by robotic exploration. And you'll also often find commercial interests, too: mining colonies, etc, and NASA can provide the seed for commercial interests. (Which will then take on a life of their own, beyond NASA's budget.)