How ever once the drones had adapted there would be nothing you can do with bullets that would make them effective again. It was a one trick pony so to speak...
Well, a two trick pony, since they weren't killed by actual bullets, but by force-fields that simulated the effect of bullets. So if Picard was able to find actual bullets (or defeat the safety mechanisms on the matter replicators to create them,) then he would be able to use actual bullets and not the holodeck.
I love being a geek :)
The fact that Michael Okuda wrote a technical manual for Star Trek, and I read through said manual and know how to operate said matter replicators and holodecks...well, that is just sad. But I agree, love being a geek.
Why didn't they just always use real bullets? The phasers only worked for a few seconds, but the bullets seem to always work. Should have gone retro.
If memory serves me well (and I am sure it does,) the reason this was effective was because Picard specifically removed the safety protocols on the holodeck, which allowed for the system to create "virtual bullets" which had a real intended effect. I suspect that since phasers were far more powerful (and had a built in non-lethal safety mechanism,) that bullets and guns were long phased out by then (the same way that our soldiers don't wear swords into battle,) and thus unavailable to Picard (though there are the matter replicators, but I believe those replicators had safety mechanisms to prevent the creation of explosives, which bullets contain.)
Damn plot holes....I cannot believe I am actually trying to rationalize a plot hole.
Oh, and this is the perfect 1000'th post...thanks.
That makes no sense. You can't claim ignorance as a defense because then ignorance of the law would be rewarded and everyone would have the incentive to know as little as possible about their rights and duties. To avoid that perverse situation, ignorance of the law is not encouraged.
What about secret laws and secret government interpretations of the law (such as with TSA rules or interpretations of the PATRIOT act,) are citizens supposed to be aware of all aspects of a law that they have no legal access to?
Uh adapt? No. They're trying to keep a grip on their jobs because there's no need for them. Between the search engines, Project Gutenberg, the Google Book Project and Amazon, there's no reason to have libraries. You can do everything you want with a Kindle and for less money.
My library has an awful lot of computers which are free to use in order to access things like Project Gutenberg, Google Book Project, and Amazon. They have gotten rid of a couple stacks to make room for computers.
If I'm ever famous I'm gonna make sure my dead self becomes public domain.
I don't know about making my body public domain, but if there is anything that I have created over the many years I've been here that isn't already under public domain (a majority of it is either public domain or open source,) I am on record now in saying that everything I have created that isn't public domain should be released to the public domain.
Piracy is not an economic concern. It's a VIOLATION of RIGHTS.
No, it is a violation of temporary restrictions provided by copyright. You don't have a right to prevent others from distributing your product, you have a privilege afforded under the law. And for many of us here, copyright is a relic of feudalism which should be either rethought or removed from modern capitalist societies.
What this shows is that we need an international/non-national internet (in space maybe,) where everyone can connect to it at will and no government has control of it. Sure, they can still jam the signal, but it would cut down on the stupidity. Sure, it would be a lot slower than terrestrial systems, but at least the human rights issues would be solved.
Contacting other planets might not work out so well. While it did work out in the movie, it might not in real life. ;)
Well, it may not, but then again it might. There are three fundamental problems with your statement:
1) Assumes that aliens have technology significantly advanced of our own that can somehow break the laws of physics.
2) Assumes the signal arrives at its destination without degradation. Even a directed beam of light follows the laws of physics and is subject to the inverse square rule (the more distance you travel, the wider the beam.)
3) Assumes the aliens are listening. Most life-forms on Earth aren't, so what are the chances that aliens would/could.
Yeah, we could risk a lot by trying to communicate with alien races, but I suspect the problem is that the aliens are going to be as limited by the laws of physics as we are, at which point communication may be the only form of travel we have, especially with something 20 light years away from us (which is 1.89x10^14 kilometers away...)
Only if you stop. Otherwise you're going perpendicular to your original direction of travel, as though you had made a right turn.
For this to work, however, you must go to the next intersection before making a left had turn. Otherwise you will be off by one block from where your original right hand turn would have been.
You can make money off of a derivative, which is what Disney had made with Steamboat Willie. Still though, they are rather cut-throat about it. No studio on earth knows that more than Pixar Animation Studios.
Not under current law. A derivative of a copyright work is protected under the original copyright. If I wrote a book based on the story and characters from Dune, I'd expect the Herbert estate would have serious problems with me collecting any money from it, unless they had the option of deciding whether it could be distributed and how much of a royalty they would receive from it. Even if it is loosely based on the same idea, it seems that copyright maximalists' panties get in a bind, and Disney is right up there with them.
These aren't natural monopolies, they are man made. Natural monopolies are fine (sure, the customer gets screwed, but there isn't much preventing a competitor from entering the market and competing.) Government granted, unnatural monopolies need to die, as they are anti-capitalist relics of a feudal society.
At the very minimum, copyright should be rewritten to tax copyright based on sale price of the copyrighted item (yes, that would mean open source/free stuff wouldn't be taxed.) That way, those who are still selling something get to keep their copyright, but "orphaned works" disappear because anything that is "orphaned" usually hasn't had the taxes paid for and thus is in the public domain. Tax would go into warehousing the works (LoC style) and making a database for the public to check to see whether a work is current. That would keep Disney happy and yet prevent them from f*cking up everything for everyone else.
The Feds will be back, over and over again, asking the same questions, or variations of them. The publishers will get used to being ordered to issue and automatically distribute rebates at intervals.
Except that they haven't. Early this century, the music publishers were found guilty of price fixing CDs. They settled, and as of yet, no new price fixing charges have been brought. Yet the companies still seem to manage to sell all CDs for $15. Itunes sells music for $.99 a track, regardless to how well known an artist is, and buying music for Rock Band/Guitar Hero is still in the $1.99-2.99 per song.
I agree that they need to look into e-textbooks, but I suspect it will be a while before that happens.
Mind you this is strictly hypothetical, but if you engineered a patent together, wouldn't you have to know about prior art? I think this guy is trying to [unsuccessfully] cover his ass.
Not necessarily. His patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7352953.html) is for a device similar to a TIVO, two years after TIVO was introduced. It had some differences, but I am not sure how the patent office thought it was novel.
I think expecting people to follow instructions was just too much to ask.
Well, it was on page 44 of the jury instructions, and they figured the judge read it off before the closing statements so they already heard all of the instructions.
So in the jury instructions and during the final statements at no point did anyone actually explain to the jury what "Prior Art" was? Or were they just too dense? I am going to have to go back and read the instructions to figure out what went wrong here. I am sure the Samsung lawyers will probably be doing the same.
Unfortunately, it does not appear to be enforced except for the lower echelon folks (and it only really applies to folks in the Executive Branch, and not Congress or the Judicial system.)
On the post: Partisan Piracy: Conservative Filmmakers Accuse Obama Supporters Of Uploading Their Film To Youtube
Re: Re: Re: Just a sidenote
Hey, you got him from us (Padres). No take-backs...you got what you paid for.
On the post: NZ Gets New 'Homeland' Episodes Less Than 4 Hours After US
Re: Re: Re: This Is Not The First
You can certainly get it from Hulu, without needing Hulu+, so it has to be free somewhere if Hulu has it.
On the post: When Captain Picard Loses Patience With Your Cable Service, You Need To Run A Tighter Ship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, a two trick pony, since they weren't killed by actual bullets, but by force-fields that simulated the effect of bullets. So if Picard was able to find actual bullets (or defeat the safety mechanisms on the matter replicators to create them,) then he would be able to use actual bullets and not the holodeck.
I love being a geek :)
The fact that Michael Okuda wrote a technical manual for Star Trek, and I read through said manual and know how to operate said matter replicators and holodecks...well, that is just sad. But I agree, love being a geek.
On the post: When Captain Picard Loses Patience With Your Cable Service, You Need To Run A Tighter Ship
Re: Re: Re:
If memory serves me well (and I am sure it does,) the reason this was effective was because Picard specifically removed the safety protocols on the holodeck, which allowed for the system to create "virtual bullets" which had a real intended effect. I suspect that since phasers were far more powerful (and had a built in non-lethal safety mechanism,) that bullets and guns were long phased out by then (the same way that our soldiers don't wear swords into battle,) and thus unavailable to Picard (though there are the matter replicators, but I believe those replicators had safety mechanisms to prevent the creation of explosives, which bullets contain.)
Damn plot holes....I cannot believe I am actually trying to rationalize a plot hole.
Oh, and this is the perfect 1000'th post...thanks.
On the post: Publishers Can't Seem To Celebrate The Ebook Boom Without Slipping In Odes To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re:Deterrence effect of laws.
What about secret laws and secret government interpretations of the law (such as with TSA rules or interpretations of the PATRIOT act,) are citizens supposed to be aware of all aspects of a law that they have no legal access to?
On the post: Hachette Hits Libraries With 220% Price Increase On Its Ebooks
Re: Re: Re: Why this sympathy for libraries?
My library has an awful lot of computers which are free to use in order to access things like Project Gutenberg, Google Book Project, and Amazon. They have gotten rid of a couple stacks to make room for computers.
On the post: Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works
Re:
I don't know about making my body public domain, but if there is anything that I have created over the many years I've been here that isn't already under public domain (a majority of it is either public domain or open source,) I am on record now in saying that everything I have created that isn't public domain should be released to the public domain.
On the post: Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works
Re: Re: Re:
Me too...and I am as big of a Google fanboi as most Apple iPhone users are of Apple. Android Rulez!
On the post: 'Amnesia' Is Selling So Well, The Developers Have Forgotten All About Piracy
Re: This article is irrelevant because ...
No, it is a violation of temporary restrictions provided by copyright. You don't have a right to prevent others from distributing your product, you have a privilege afforded under the law. And for many of us here, copyright is a relic of feudalism which should be either rethought or removed from modern capitalist societies.
On the post: First HADOPI Victim Convicted, Not For His Own Infringement, But Because His Wife Downloaded Songs
Current Internet Broken, Need New Internet
On the post: Tweets... In... Space....
Re: Didn't they see the movie Battleship?
Well, it may not, but then again it might. There are three fundamental problems with your statement:
1) Assumes that aliens have technology significantly advanced of our own that can somehow break the laws of physics.
2) Assumes the signal arrives at its destination without degradation. Even a directed beam of light follows the laws of physics and is subject to the inverse square rule (the more distance you travel, the wider the beam.)
3) Assumes the aliens are listening. Most life-forms on Earth aren't, so what are the chances that aliens would/could.
Yeah, we could risk a lot by trying to communicate with alien races, but I suspect the problem is that the aliens are going to be as limited by the laws of physics as we are, at which point communication may be the only form of travel we have, especially with something 20 light years away from us (which is 1.89x10^14 kilometers away...)
On the post: Two Copywrongs Don't Make A Right, But We Still Need A Way To Combat False Takedown Notices
Re: Re: Re:
For this to work, however, you must go to the next intersection before making a left had turn. Otherwise you will be off by one block from where your original right hand turn would have been.
On the post: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not under current law. A derivative of a copyright work is protected under the original copyright. If I wrote a book based on the story and characters from Dune, I'd expect the Herbert estate would have serious problems with me collecting any money from it, unless they had the option of deciding whether it could be distributed and how much of a royalty they would receive from it. Even if it is loosely based on the same idea, it seems that copyright maximalists' panties get in a bind, and Disney is right up there with them.
On the post: First Round Of Ebook Price Fixing Settlements Are Announced
Re:
These aren't natural monopolies, they are man made. Natural monopolies are fine (sure, the customer gets screwed, but there isn't much preventing a competitor from entering the market and competing.) Government granted, unnatural monopolies need to die, as they are anti-capitalist relics of a feudal society.
At the very minimum, copyright should be rewritten to tax copyright based on sale price of the copyrighted item (yes, that would mean open source/free stuff wouldn't be taxed.) That way, those who are still selling something get to keep their copyright, but "orphaned works" disappear because anything that is "orphaned" usually hasn't had the taxes paid for and thus is in the public domain. Tax would go into warehousing the works (LoC style) and making a database for the public to check to see whether a work is current. That would keep Disney happy and yet prevent them from f*cking up everything for everyone else.
On the post: First Round Of Ebook Price Fixing Settlements Are Announced
Re: The Next Round
Except that they haven't. Early this century, the music publishers were found guilty of price fixing CDs. They settled, and as of yet, no new price fixing charges have been brought. Yet the companies still seem to manage to sell all CDs for $15. Itunes sells music for $.99 a track, regardless to how well known an artist is, and buying music for Rock Band/Guitar Hero is still in the $1.99-2.99 per song.
I agree that they need to look into e-textbooks, but I suspect it will be a while before that happens.
On the post: Samsung/Apple Jury Foreman's Explanation For Verdict Shows He Doesn't Understand Prior Art
Re: Re: facepalm...
Not necessarily. His patent (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7352953.html) is for a device similar to a TIVO, two years after TIVO was introduced. It had some differences, but I am not sure how the patent office thought it was novel.
On the post: Samsung/Apple Jury Foreman's Explanation For Verdict Shows He Doesn't Understand Prior Art
Re: Re: facepalm...
Well, it was on page 44 of the jury instructions, and they figured the judge read it off before the closing statements so they already heard all of the instructions.
On the post: Samsung/Apple Jury Foreman's Explanation For Verdict Shows He Doesn't Understand Prior Art
facepalm...
On the post: Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/600.cfm
On the post: Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, it does not appear to be enforced except for the lower echelon folks (and it only really applies to folks in the Executive Branch, and not Congress or the Judicial system.)
Next >>