SpaceX's reusable rockets is huge, a much bigger deal than most people realize.
To put it into perspective, think about the last time you flew on an airplane. It cost a few hundred dollars, most likely, to take a trip on a jet valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Imagine what air travel would be like if, for every flight, you had to build an entirely new plane.
They did. That period of time went down in history under the name "the Reign of Terror." It's worth noting that this name didn't come about as an accusation of a political opponent of the reigning terrorists, nor was it coined by a later historian looking back upon those days with a critical eye. No, it was actually explicitly (and enthusiastically) described as such by Maximilien Robespierre, the guy in charge of all the terror and reigning.
I really hope no one today is seriously looking to those times as inspiration.
There had been some panic that making the book available would increase neo-Nazi sentiment in Germany, but it also might better educate the public on the insanity that was Adolf Hitler.
Remember, kids, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
...which brings OJ Simpson to mind, a (non-serial) killer who set up a somewhat similar situation. The courts came up with a rather ingenuous solution. (Yes, I know that's an oversimplification, but it was still a pretty good solution.)
The point -- which apparently went WAY over your head -- is that one of the largest music stars today was supporting the website.
If by "music" you mean "rap." To people outside that particular fandom, he's best known as "that attention-whore jerk who shamefully mistreated Taylor Swift."
That you read something else into it suggests a rather problematic view on your part.
I find that fact that you think that thinking that someone's character matters is problematic problematic.
That's actually not capitalism for you. Unfortunately, we haven't had capitalism in this country for decades now. Try reading Adam Smith sometime; it's surprising how many of the things he said that, if said today, would get him branded as a dirty commie by modern "free market" proponents.
It's hard to feel too broken up by this, considering that even if they weren't infringing copyright, the music these sites were promoting has had well-documented strong ties to gang violence, drug culture, misogyny culture and all-around sleaze for decades. Heck, when the example you're holding up to try to establish the legitimacy of the site is freaking Kanye West, that belongs right up there on the Not Helping Your Case leaderboard with the guys who point out that if we shut down YouTube we might miss out on the next Justin Beiber, but three or four steps higher.
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
That we retroactively extended those works, taking away the public domain for no actual benefit, remains a travesty.
It's more than a travesty; it's blatantly illegal. The Constitution says straight out that Congress shall not pass any ex post facto (retroactive) law. How in the world has retroactive copyright term extension managed to pass judicial review in light of this?
Seriously, there are tons of ways to wreck into a bus that could harm the occupants.
Yeah, if you're driving a dump truck. Buses are made with very heavy-duty steel frames, because they're designed to take safety very seriously. When a car made of aluminum crashes into one, the car gets crunched and the bus just shakes a little.
As I've mentioned on here before, trade secrets are the problem that patents were created to solve, because if you keep something useful secret too well, the secret may well die with you, and there are innumerable examples of that happening throughout history, losing great treasures of "science and the useful arts." So the solution was to provide secret-like protection in return for requiring the secret to be published so it couldn't be lost.
Unfortunately, lawmakers don't understand this, and they continue to treat trade secrets as something legitimate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do; instead of strengthening trade secret protections, we should repeal them entirely. The only examples I've ever seen of people offering what appears to be a legitimate example of trade secrets worthy of protection is stuff like client lists, which is better classified under "protection of privacy" anyway, so there really is no good reason for trade secrets to be a thing considered worthy of legal protection anymore.
I actually don't see them as being clearly within their rights at all. If the creators of Axanar had a meeting with CBS and CBS said they were fine with them producing the film, then doesn't that mean that any subsequent attempt to shut it down has "promissory estoppel" written all over it?
Others get more complex, including whether or not cars should be programmed to kill the occupant -- if it means saving a school bus full of children.
There are only two answers to this question that make any sense at all.
First, the literal one: Don't be ridiculous; do you have any idea how solidly built a bus is? It's practically inconceivable that there could be any way you could crash a modern car into one that would put the inhabitants of the bus at any serious risk of death or severe injury.
Second, the "in the spirit it was asked" one: No, it absolutely should not be programmed to sacrifice the driver under any circumstances whatsoever. For two reasons: first, because if people know that such functionality exists, they'll never want to buy it, and second (partially feeding into the first) because if such functionality exists, it becomes a target for hackers; someone will inevitably try to find a way to cause it to activate incorrectly, just because it's there. The very real danger of this overwhelmingly outweighs the hypothetical danger of a "trolley problem" incident.
I will take that solid steal frame and body vs your fiberglass crumple zones any day.
Then have fun dying when you hit something. Those crumple zones are there to protect you--not whatever you hit--by helping to absorb the impact.
Since deceleration trauma is deceleration trauma no matter which direction it occurs in, think about it vertically. If you do the math, you find that getting in a crash at 60 MPH is almost exactly equivalent to falling off of a 14-story building. If that happened, would you rather land directly on the sidewalk, or on a pile of cushions?
Which is entirely the point: the best bulwark against terrorist attacks of this nature is the public itself. Anything that reduces the likelihood of the public actively alerting authorities to these threats is counter-productive.
...so what you're saying is, "see something, say something"?
There will never be a "the cure for cancer" for one simple reason: there is no such thing as "the cancer" to be cured. There are over 100 distinct types of cells in your body, and each one has its own individual way of going haywire. (Some have more than one!) Each one is its own distinct disease, and needs to be treated in its own way.
On the post: DailyDirt: Getting Back Into Space
To put it into perspective, think about the last time you flew on an airplane. It cost a few hundred dollars, most likely, to take a trip on a jet valued in the tens of millions of dollars. Imagine what air travel would be like if, for every flight, you had to build an entirely new plane.
That's what SpaceX is on the verge of overcoming.
On the post: New Zealand's Raid On Investigatory Journalist Was Illegal
Re: Re:
I really hope no one today is seriously looking to those times as inspiration.
On the post: Anne Frank's Diary... And Hitler's Mein Kampf Hit The Public Domain In Europe - Despite Concerns About Both
Remember, kids, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
On the post: Anne Frank's Diary... And Hitler's Mein Kampf Hit The Public Domain In Europe - Despite Concerns About Both
Re: Mein Kampf
On the post: Government Officials Think NSA Spying That 'Incidentally' Swept Up Congressional Phone Calls Still Not Enough Spying
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re: Re:
If by "music" you mean "rap." To people outside that particular fandom, he's best known as "that attention-whore jerk who shamefully mistreated Taylor Swift."
I find that fact that you think that thinking that someone's character matters is problematic problematic.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re: Re:
*looks it up*
Oh, that guy.
Umm... how in the world did you derive that from what I said? Or are you just spouting random gibberish simply because you can?
On the post: House Intelligence Committee Orders Investigation Into Surveillance Of Congress That It Authorized
Re: Hate to tell you:
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
It's more than a travesty; it's blatantly illegal. The Constitution says straight out that Congress shall not pass any ex post facto (retroactive) law. How in the world has retroactive copyright term extension managed to pass judicial review in light of this?
On the post: FBI Closes Out 2015 With Another Questionable Terrorism Bust
On the post: DailyDirt: Imagine There's No Cancer...
Re:
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re: Re:
Yeah, if you're driving a dump truck. Buses are made with very heavy-duty steel frames, because they're designed to take safety very seriously. When a car made of aluminum crashes into one, the car gets crunched and the bus just shakes a little.
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TPP's Forgotten Danger: Stronger Trade Secrets Protection, With Criminal Penalties For Infringement
Unfortunately, lawmakers don't understand this, and they continue to treat trade secrets as something legitimate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do; instead of strengthening trade secret protections, we should repeal them entirely. The only examples I've ever seen of people offering what appears to be a legitimate example of trade secrets worthy of protection is stuff like client lists, which is better classified under "protection of privacy" anyway, so there really is no good reason for trade secrets to be a thing considered worthy of legal protection anymore.
On the post: CBS Sues Over Star Trek Fan Film Because It Sounds Like It's Going To Be Pretty Good
Re: Re:
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
There are only two answers to this question that make any sense at all.
First, the literal one: Don't be ridiculous; do you have any idea how solidly built a bus is? It's practically inconceivable that there could be any way you could crash a modern car into one that would put the inhabitants of the bus at any serious risk of death or severe injury.
Second, the "in the spirit it was asked" one: No, it absolutely should not be programmed to sacrifice the driver under any circumstances whatsoever. For two reasons: first, because if people know that such functionality exists, they'll never want to buy it, and second (partially feeding into the first) because if such functionality exists, it becomes a target for hackers; someone will inevitably try to find a way to cause it to activate incorrectly, just because it's there. The very real danger of this overwhelmingly outweighs the hypothetical danger of a "trolley problem" incident.
On the post: If We're Not Careful, Self-Driving Cars Will Be The Cornerstone Of The DRM'd, Surveillance Dystopias Of Tomorrow
Re: Re: Re: The good old classics
Then have fun dying when you hit something. Those crumple zones are there to protect you--not whatever you hit--by helping to absorb the impact.
Since deceleration trauma is deceleration trauma no matter which direction it occurs in, think about it vertically. If you do the math, you find that getting in a crash at 60 MPH is almost exactly equivalent to falling off of a 14-story building. If that happened, would you rather land directly on the sidewalk, or on a pile of cushions?
On the post: These Ain't Masterminds: Would Be Terrorist Crowdsourced Targets On Twitter Using 'Silent Bomber' Handle
...so what you're saying is, "see something, say something"?
On the post: DailyDirt: Imagine There's No Cancer...
Next >>