That's nice an all, glad your demonstration worked for you, but with nothing else of note taking processor, I have found that Terminal.app sometimes does lag behind my keystrokes. Don't know why, don't care beyond the fact that it's a pain and does happen. Yes, certainly this is just one data point, or "anecdotal" to those who wish to dismiss the fact that it happens, but it does happen and that sucks.
I mean, sure, I only have the 2.4 Ghz MacBook Pro but even with such an out-of-date machine I would expect Terminal.app to be able to keep up with my keypresses, wouldn't you?
. Memo to organizations that do that. If your QA -- who are overworked, underpaid, and probably need a vacation -- screws up at the wrong time and you put an important business sector offline for days or weeks, you are looking at a major league class action suit. Don't expect the shrinkwrap EULA to protect you. And why not? How many times have there already been problems that put important business sectors offline for days or weeks and not one software vendor has suffered a class action suit, or even any repercussions beyond ultimately (and most times not even then) having to say "Oops! My bad!" ?
I have no idea what is "protecting" these software vendors other than the halo that we are dealing with software and everyone expects things to go very bad once and a while in the field but the threat of lawsuits at this point is laughable.
Note: I am merely reporting on the actual state of things, this does not mean I agree with it.
So, if you'd care to share where the all the mass and energy came from to create this universe and show that these other universes cannot access the same or similar source I will subscribe to you Hogwash! newsletter.
But you are incorrect. The probability of someone winning the lottery, any lottery, is not 1 unless all lottery numbers are played by someone. If there is one or more numbers that are not played, then the probability is less than 100%.
Mod me troll if you want, but the people you described, rural America, in large part put Bush and Co. into the White House, not to mention his dad and Ron.
All I can say about your litany of woes is that in the end, you reap what you sow.
Did you read the paragraph in the GP?
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion. So, yes they can syndicate it. They can resell it to others very easily as well. All they have to do is offer it as a service. Don't think that this includes selling it? Well, if you are selling a service, what promotes that service better than, hmm, content?
I really don't care that someone at Google said they wouldn't do so, and that this is just a CYA to be able to provide a channel for others to obtain access to your work. That's BS, otherwise this would be written rather differently.
What I see is that while you technically own the copyrights, google can use any content that is submitted and "publicly available" in any manner they wish, period.
But it really, really, REALLY doesn't matter if it was derived from experiments, or that they didn't test other configurations.
The fact is that there should be absolutely no need to throttle network processing when playing back content.
It is simply ridiculous that the latest, ahem, greatest OS from Microsoft has this limitation.
What's even more ridiculous is that the engineers at MS thought that it was OK.
If the OS requires throttling network traffic to play an MP3 "glitch free" and this is the best solution that Microsoft could come up with, there are a major issues with the guts of the system.
No, I don't believe they are your straw man. It is also amazing the anti-apple fanboy-ism here, too.
Let's look at in the reverse. Are you trying to claim that a network should be able to be brought down by a few rouge devices? Let's not get into EMP generators, or other disruptors, but commercial devices. The facts seem to be that a few devices take down NOT JUST the AP they are in range of but large sections of the local fabric.
I'm not trying to claim that there's no flaw in Apple's device, BTW. Certainly one device could cause an AP to be useless and with enough power several AP's. But at that point we're talking jamming, not protocol misuse. For a few devices of this type to wreak the kind of havoc talked about means that there are also flaws in the network.
I may be proven wrong, but is is pretty hard to assume that this is only a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
It is so hard to understand that both are probably happening?
I think you have that backwards. Showing naked people on tv shouldn't necessarily be rated anything. Everyone is naked under their clothes. Everyone is naked at some point in their life. People do have bodies, let's not teach them to be ashamed of them.
All those independent artists who sell on CDBaby, etc. already have copyright agreements with those distributors. The artist payment and sales infrastructures also exist.
Why don't these outlets become (in addition) a way for artists to license their works for Internet play? Artists could also list prices (including free) for internet radio play. All that would be needed is the backend and display pieces and internet radio stations to play by the law.
Artists would be responsible for putting in this info when uploading, internet radio stations could programmatically d/l this or browse it to find new artists to play as well as decide who to play based on the stated rates. It could either be an extra free service of the site or they could take a cut. I would assume that since this drives sales a middle ground could be reached here (even for those artists who wish their songs to be played for free on internet radio).
Sure, this would only work for independent artists, but isn't that a good thing in the long run?
I guess I think that the existing independent infrastructure can be extended to cover some of the issues both the artists have (how do I get my stuff heard?) as well as the radio stations (how do i find stuff to play that doesn't bankrupt me?). This solution answers both questions.
The only remaining question is on the part of the aggregators (what's in it for me?) and I would posit the increased sales of the albums and generated goodwill might be enough. Although a small cut of those artists who choose to license their works for $$ is probably not too much to ask either.
So, when do we see aggregators step up for this? Probably soon after this law starts to be actually enforced.
Hopefully, such a scheme will continue to drive forward an ecology of independent artists. It's one more piece to a totally RIAA free world. This setback could turn into a positive force that does exactly the opposite that the major labels wish. Unintended consequences and all.
I believe that as someone acting as the legal agent for the copyright holders, the actions of the agent reflect entirely on the people pulling the strings. That is, it appears obvious that the RIAA is doing this at the behest of their corporate masters and not in contravention of their wishes.
Thus, any judgment against the RIAA in this matter is binding and should be applied to the copyright holders. They (the Copyright Holders) cannot merely hire another agent to do the same thing, nor can they escape having their rights stripped if it is deemed they are abusing them. An agent is not a get out of jail free card - it's someone else YOU are liable for if they commit wrongdoing, especially if you condone their actions and many times even if you don't.
Hmm. What kind of mathematician are you? They are certainly Orders different! One is an Integer, the other a Real. How much different (and thus not equivalent) can you get???:)
Exactly. My first thought was - Jeez, He's part of the problem!
Don't check "personal" email, don't surf Slashdot, do nothing except work and do what you're told. Easiest way to have people to come in with a slave mentality. Do just enough to avoid getting beaten down but certainly not enough to actually make a difference.
I wonder how he reconciles his use of company resources to post to Slashdot with his attitude toward lusers. Oh, right, he's probably posting from home... and some lusers are more equal than others (mainly, those that have the Keys to the Kingdom).
So you are imputing that the judges follow public opinion instead of the Law? After all, they know (knew) they were frivolous and reprehensible attempts to extort money but used to go along with it because the public didn't know.
Now, suddenly, since the public seems aware that this is wrong, now they change their rulings (if not their opinions)?
Hmm. Seems either judges are slack bastards who just care about their own power privileges or are beholden to public opinion instead of the law.
Unfortunately, someone does "own" the Internet - it's not just a single line of ownership. The Internet is made up of nodes and edges, which are physical things. SOMEONE owns every single bit of each of those physical things, even if that someone is a legal fiction such as a Corporation or a Government.
I think you are forgetting the primary reason Corporations exist - to strip money from those that have it on the pretense of giving a service.
The schemes suggested by the ISPs and backbone companies are intended to create additional revenue. Why would they NOT do this wholesale if it were legal? It's a basic cartel at the moment and if the backbone providers lead the way ISPs really don't have a choice in the matter, do they?
I think the only reason it currently isn't being done is that they haven't had the power to force such practices to be legal, yet. Fortunately, others are aware that the threat is credible. You may continue to stick your head in the sand, but I don't believe it's nonsense.
Right. Except putting OS X on other hardware? Hmmm.
Perhaps it should be reworded as "I'd hardly think they would completely *against* hacking anything that isn't opposed to their current Corporate Interests."
So basically, sorry, but I can see why a professional journalist would sneer at the "I r a journalist 2" blogger gang. Believe neither if you will, but one at least does have some higher quality work to justify that sneer. No, the professional media aren't saints, but it takes an extreme case of OCPD to lump them both in some "neither is perfect, therefore both are equally crap" pot. Yes, however it takes an extreme case of cynicism to imagine that all bloggers are crap and that "professional journalists" have the right to sneer at the category as a whole. There are multiple reasons the traditional media centers sneer at bloggers, and not all the motives are as pure as you impute.
To lump all bloggers into the same category as the opportunists who take gelt for their web-presence as a kind of shadowy astro-turf society is misapprehending the fact that Bloggers want Their Opinion heard, not to be some corporate shill. So, I think that what we are seeing is a further categorization of online media outlets. There are Yellow Bloggers - similar to MOST pre-20th century publications and Bloggers, similar to Real Journalists(tm). Imagine that.
To lump all bloggers into a non-professional category (that is, not having the Authority to back their opinions, or not having the chops to write eloquently, passionately or with technical accuracy) is equally fallacious.
The traditional media doesn't recognise this distinction, because it doesn't fit their agenda. They think that to give legitimacy to the new media means that they have less power to influence people, which is what Real Journalists want, as well. This is driven by fear, as many things are. But, additionally, they are right. They do stand to loose their power to the masses. Go figure.
To imagine that Bloggers and their readers cannot police themselves at least as well as traditional media is ludicrous. Bloggers that want to be seen as authoritative sources of information are driven by the exact same pressures as traditional media outlets. The ones not posting lies also feel that it is in their best interest to be trustworthy. Good ones will print retractions, redactions, other people's opinions and respond to all that just the same, because they are swimming in the same fitness curve as professional journalists (mainly because they are).
Libel laws still work in the blogosphere. Trust and reputation still have to be earned. Pseudo-nonymous opinions and facts better have a long history of Reputation compared to Real Live Individuals before being trusted....etc...
I don't see how Google providing a service to their customers - that is letting them know which sites are LYING to them - is regulation in any sense. If they can trace a web of mis-trust why not let their customers know about it? I would.
I think they should provide the service if enough people want it. I assume that they do, considering that if the first 3 pages of your hits are all lies... how do you ever get to the truth? By the time you read it, you probably won't even recognise it as such.
You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that collective politics and the coercive practices of the government will self-regulate and provide more truthful information than thousands of bloggers who give their Truth freely. Even if they are under mis-apprehensions as to what that is, I'd rather read an honest opinion based on misinformed facts than a Big Lie made up of whole cloth and spread across multiple supposed independent sites for the sole purpose of tricking me.
I think that Google or some other company should get on the bandwagon of vetting such garbage so it doesn't pollute my search results. If you want to see such crap, go for it, but I think I'll stick to a fully disclosed model.
Your theories are all well and good if both players in the game are rational and moral actors.
However, it turns out that a company is rarely a rational and moral actor - they're more like psychopaths.
So as a rational actor who is beholden to a powerful psychopath your theories turn the situation into a Catch-22 for the rational actor and a free pass for the psychopath.
When you say This sounds like massive lawsuit material, and I hope she gets enough money... you are really fooling yourself. It will almost always cost the rational actor more in terms of time and effort once caught up in the Web to right the situation properly.
In fact, the previous poster was essentially correct. When playing a prisoner's dilemma game with a known bad actor your only chance is to cheat, or not to play. Since "not playing" in this case pretty much means not buying a computer you had better cheat. That is - yes, tell the company what they need to hear so the outcome is favourable to both sides - not just to the company.
I also think you should stop wrongly anthropomorphizing Companies. They cannot "live" up to their obligations. They have none. They have no ethical obligations beyond their own survival. The only other obligations they have are those they are forced to live up to via imposition from the outside and as psychopaths, they try to weasel out of those as much as possible (which is why the rational actor has to spend so much time and effort to right the situation).
The new provisions in the Law are that the copyright OWNERS must self police the intarweb. AND THEN inform the service providing the copyright materiel that copyright infringement is taking place. THEN it is the responsibility of a service like YouTube to self-police. Not before.
Wah, wah, wah. Call me flamebait but the copyright holders dug themselves this grave (who *really* sponsored the DMCA and tried to kill Fair Use?) and I hope they are buried in it, personally.
It is already historically proven that American Power Interests will and have posed as extremists, to the point of instigating and participating in violent acts. Anyone who lived through the '60's and had their eyes open already knows this. Just look up cointelpro.
Stuff like this gives weight to even the most paranoid "delusional" fantasies of government persecution.
Well, i guess that depends on your idea of what an inefficient, badly run government is.
Stalinist Russia dragged the State into the industrial age, but I don't see many people citing that as a well run government in the sense most people use.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice an all, glad your demonstration worked for you, but with nothing else of note taking processor, I have found that Terminal.app sometimes does lag behind my keystrokes. Don't know why, don't care beyond the fact that it's a pain and does happen. Yes, certainly this is just one data point, or "anecdotal" to those who wish to dismiss the fact that it happens, but it does happen and that sucks.
I mean, sure, I only have the 2.4 Ghz MacBook Pro but even with such an out-of-date machine I would expect Terminal.app to be able to keep up with my keypresses, wouldn't you?
I have no idea what is "protecting" these software vendors other than the halo that we are dealing with software and everyone expects things to go very bad once and a while in the field but the threat of lawsuits at this point is laughable.
Note: I am merely reporting on the actual state of things, this does not mean I agree with it.
So, if you'd care to share where the all the mass and energy came from to create this universe and show that these other universes cannot access the same or similar source I will subscribe to you Hogwash! newsletter.
cheers,
j
But you are incorrect. The probability of someone winning the lottery, any lottery, is not 1 unless all lottery numbers are played by someone. If there is one or more numbers that are not played, then the probability is less than 100%.
Mod me troll if you want, but the people you described, rural America, in large part put Bush and Co. into the White House, not to mention his dad and Ron.
All I can say about your litany of woes is that in the end, you reap what you sow.
If you can't put the effort into rendering your own soap, then you are inferior to someone who does so. You smelly person!
Perhaps he puts effort into other things that he values more?
Here I thought that one of the biggest Virtues touted by BSD was that anyone could do anything with the code, including close sourcing it.
So, what's the big deal about a Linux copy that is qualitatively better than having someone gobble it up and slap it behind a proprietary label?
Am I missing something or does it seem like BSD wants it both ways?
We finally find out for sure which team Miguel is really playing for. Let me give you a hint and say - it's not our team.
I really don't care that someone at Google said they wouldn't do so, and that this is just a CYA to be able to provide a channel for others to obtain access to your work. That's BS, otherwise this would be written rather differently.
What I see is that while you technically own the copyrights, google can use any content that is submitted and "publicly available" in any manner they wish, period.
But it really, really, REALLY doesn't matter if it was derived from experiments, or that they didn't test other configurations.
The fact is that there should be absolutely no need to throttle network processing when playing back content.
It is simply ridiculous that the latest, ahem, greatest OS from Microsoft has this limitation.
What's even more ridiculous is that the engineers at MS thought that it was OK.
If the OS requires throttling network traffic to play an MP3 "glitch free" and this is the best solution that Microsoft could come up with, there are a major issues with the guts of the system.
No, I don't believe they are your straw man. It is also amazing the anti-apple fanboy-ism here, too.
Let's look at in the reverse. Are you trying to claim that a network should be able to be brought down by a few rouge devices? Let's not get into EMP generators, or other disruptors, but commercial devices. The facts seem to be that a few devices take down NOT JUST the AP they are in range of but large sections of the local fabric.
I'm not trying to claim that there's no flaw in Apple's device, BTW. Certainly one device could cause an AP to be useless and with enough power several AP's. But at that point we're talking jamming, not protocol misuse. For a few devices of this type to wreak the kind of havoc talked about means that there are also flaws in the network.
I may be proven wrong, but is is pretty hard to assume that this is only a broken WiFi driver in the iPhone.
It is so hard to understand that both are probably happening?
I think you have that backwards. Showing naked people on tv shouldn't necessarily be rated anything. Everyone is naked under their clothes. Everyone is naked at some point in their life. People do have bodies, let's not teach them to be ashamed of them.
Ok, here's what I envision.
All those independent artists who sell on CDBaby, etc. already have copyright agreements with those distributors. The artist payment and sales infrastructures also exist.
Why don't these outlets become (in addition) a way for artists to license their works for Internet play? Artists could also list prices (including free) for internet radio play. All that would be needed is the backend and display pieces and internet radio stations to play by the law.
Artists would be responsible for putting in this info when uploading, internet radio stations could programmatically d/l this or browse it to find new artists to play as well as decide who to play based on the stated rates. It could either be an extra free service of the site or they could take a cut. I would assume that since this drives sales a middle ground could be reached here (even for those artists who wish their songs to be played for free on internet radio).
Sure, this would only work for independent artists, but isn't that a good thing in the long run?
I guess I think that the existing independent infrastructure can be extended to cover some of the issues both the artists have (how do I get my stuff heard?) as well as the radio stations (how do i find stuff to play that doesn't bankrupt me?). This solution answers both questions.
The only remaining question is on the part of the aggregators (what's in it for me?) and I would posit the increased sales of the albums and generated goodwill might be enough. Although a small cut of those artists who choose to license their works for $$ is probably not too much to ask either.
So, when do we see aggregators step up for this? Probably soon after this law starts to be actually enforced.
Hopefully, such a scheme will continue to drive forward an ecology of independent artists. It's one more piece to a totally RIAA free world. This setback could turn into a positive force that does exactly the opposite that the major labels wish. Unintended consequences and all.
I believe that as someone acting as the legal agent for the copyright holders, the actions of the agent reflect entirely on the people pulling the strings. That is, it appears obvious that the RIAA is doing this at the behest of their corporate masters and not in contravention of their wishes.
Thus, any judgment against the RIAA in this matter is binding and should be applied to the copyright holders. They (the Copyright Holders) cannot merely hire another agent to do the same thing, nor can they escape having their rights stripped if it is deemed they are abusing them. An agent is not a get out of jail free card - it's someone else YOU are liable for if they commit wrongdoing, especially if you condone their actions and many times even if you don't.
Hmm. What kind of mathematician are you? They are certainly Orders different! One is an Integer, the other a Real. How much different (and thus not equivalent) can you get??? :)
Exactly. My first thought was - Jeez, He's part of the problem!
Don't check "personal" email, don't surf Slashdot, do nothing except work and do what you're told. Easiest way to have people to come in with a slave mentality. Do just enough to avoid getting beaten down but certainly not enough to actually make a difference.
I wonder how he reconciles his use of company resources to post to Slashdot with his attitude toward lusers. Oh, right, he's probably posting from home... and some lusers are more equal than others (mainly, those that have the Keys to the Kingdom).
So you are imputing that the judges follow public opinion instead of the Law? After all, they know (knew) they were frivolous and reprehensible attempts to extort money but used to go along with it because the public didn't know.
Now, suddenly, since the public seems aware that this is wrong, now they change their rulings (if not their opinions)?
Hmm. Seems either judges are slack bastards who just care about their own power privileges or are beholden to public opinion instead of the law.
Something seems messed up in your argument.
Unfortunately, someone does "own" the Internet - it's not just a single line of ownership. The Internet is made up of nodes and edges, which are physical things. SOMEONE owns every single bit of each of those physical things, even if that someone is a legal fiction such as a Corporation or a Government.
I think you are forgetting the primary reason Corporations exist - to strip money from those that have it on the pretense of giving a service.
The schemes suggested by the ISPs and backbone companies are intended to create additional revenue. Why would they NOT do this wholesale if it were legal? It's a basic cartel at the moment and if the backbone providers lead the way ISPs really don't have a choice in the matter, do they?
I think the only reason it currently isn't being done is that they haven't had the power to force such practices to be legal, yet. Fortunately, others are aware that the threat is credible. You may continue to stick your head in the sand, but I don't believe it's nonsense.
Right. Except putting OS X on other hardware? Hmmm.
Perhaps it should be reworded as "I'd hardly think they would completely *against* hacking anything that isn't opposed to their current Corporate Interests."
YMMV
To lump all bloggers into the same category as the opportunists who take gelt for their web-presence as a kind of shadowy astro-turf society is misapprehending the fact that Bloggers want Their Opinion heard, not to be some corporate shill. So, I think that what we are seeing is a further categorization of online media outlets. There are Yellow Bloggers - similar to MOST pre-20th century publications and Bloggers, similar to Real Journalists(tm). Imagine that.
To lump all bloggers into a non-professional category (that is, not having the Authority to back their opinions, or not having the chops to write eloquently, passionately or with technical accuracy) is equally fallacious.
The traditional media doesn't recognise this distinction, because it doesn't fit their agenda. They think that to give legitimacy to the new media means that they have less power to influence people, which is what Real Journalists want, as well. This is driven by fear, as many things are. But, additionally, they are right. They do stand to loose their power to the masses. Go figure.
To imagine that Bloggers and their readers cannot police themselves at least as well as traditional media is ludicrous. Bloggers that want to be seen as authoritative sources of information are driven by the exact same pressures as traditional media outlets. The ones not posting lies also feel that it is in their best interest to be trustworthy. Good ones will print retractions, redactions, other people's opinions and respond to all that just the same, because they are swimming in the same fitness curve as professional journalists (mainly because they are).
Libel laws still work in the blogosphere.
Trust and reputation still have to be earned.
Pseudo-nonymous opinions and facts better have a long history of Reputation compared to Real Live Individuals before being trusted.
I don't see how Google providing a service to their customers - that is letting them know which sites are LYING to them - is regulation in any sense. If they can trace a web of mis-trust why not let their customers know about it? I would.
I think they should provide the service if enough people want it. I assume that they do, considering that if the first 3 pages of your hits are all lies... how do you ever get to the truth? By the time you read it, you probably won't even recognise it as such.
You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that collective politics and the coercive practices of the government will self-regulate and provide more truthful information than thousands of bloggers who give their Truth freely. Even if they are under mis-apprehensions as to what that is, I'd rather read an honest opinion based on misinformed facts than a Big Lie made up of whole cloth and spread across multiple supposed independent sites for the sole purpose of tricking me.
I think that Google or some other company should get on the bandwagon of vetting such garbage so it doesn't pollute my search results. If you want to see such crap, go for it, but I think I'll stick to a fully disclosed model.
Your theories are all well and good if both players in the game are rational and moral actors.
However, it turns out that a company is rarely a rational and moral actor - they're more like psychopaths.
So as a rational actor who is beholden to a powerful psychopath your theories turn the situation into a Catch-22 for the rational actor and a free pass for the psychopath.
When you say This sounds like massive lawsuit material, and I hope she gets enough money... you are really fooling yourself. It will almost always cost the rational actor more in terms of time and effort once caught up in the Web to right the situation properly.
In fact, the previous poster was essentially correct. When playing a prisoner's dilemma game with a known bad actor your only chance is to cheat, or not to play. Since "not playing" in this case pretty much means not buying a computer you had better cheat. That is - yes, tell the company what they need to hear so the outcome is favourable to both sides - not just to the company.
I also think you should stop wrongly anthropomorphizing Companies. They cannot "live" up to their obligations. They have none. They have no ethical obligations beyond their own survival. The only other obligations they have are those they are forced to live up to via imposition from the outside and as psychopaths, they try to weasel out of those as much as possible (which is why the rational actor has to spend so much time and effort to right the situation).
Wrong. Completely and utterly.
The new provisions in the Law are that the copyright OWNERS must self police the intarweb. AND THEN inform the service providing the copyright materiel that copyright infringement is taking place. THEN it is the responsibility of a service like YouTube to self-police. Not before.
Wah, wah, wah. Call me flamebait but the copyright holders dug themselves this grave (who *really* sponsored the DMCA and tried to kill Fair Use?) and I hope they are buried in it, personally.
Yeah, once upon a time -- like 1950.
It is already historically proven that American Power Interests will and have posed as extremists, to the point of instigating and participating in violent acts. Anyone who lived through the '60's and had their eyes open already knows this. Just look up cointelpro.
Stuff like this gives weight to even the most paranoid "delusional" fantasies of government persecution.
Well, i guess that depends on your idea of what an inefficient, badly run government is.
Stalinist Russia dragged the State into the industrial age, but I don't see many people citing that as a well run government in the sense most people use.