Actually, no, sale does not enter into it. One of the primary precedents for the expanded interpretation of the Commerce clause is Wickard vs. Filburn from 1942. SCOTUS determined that an Ohio man growing wheat as fodder for his animals and no other purpose was nevertheless subject to Federal limits on production and consequently liable for the statutory fine for his actions. The mere existence of Filburn's wheat was considered to have a *substantial economic effect,* according to the majority.
For the first time, scholars and reviewers could quote briefly from copyrighted works without having to pay fees.
Prior to 1909 these arrangements were not unregulated. Often the fees were often nominal or wholly foregone. These fees did not significantly impair the ability of authors to react for and against, or academics to cite, previous work.
Better yet, in fuller response to the ostensible value of *fair use*, a term of 7 years might be more efficacious.
This is an exceptionally pernicious metaphor. We do often prefer one idea to another, but a market does not exist. One idea is right and one is wrong and the choice is usually a false one. Choosing what others have chosen is a CYA tactic and not a way to conduct one's intellectual life. This result demonstrates man the social animal impeding man the rational animal.
These are not new problems and are not limited to democracies of taste or meritocratic capitalism. One of the more interesting results was the *new band* question. Participant is asked if they had heard of these four new bands, one of which was spurious. The profile of recognition was statistically identical to that for the three real, but little known, new bands. Respondents need to be seen as knowing, whether they have actual knowledge or not. This makes clear that musical taste as a function of personal identity formation and not music appreciation. The big labels have know this for years: it doesn't matter who you front as long as you flood the airwaves and hype the sucker.
That said, there are a handful of people in all times and places who do not consider themselves tied to their peer's taste; who strive to think for themselves. They usually have unique access to actual ideas. They are often shunned by their peers because they call into question the intellectual shorthand everyone else contents themselves with. They are either crackpots or geniuses, sometimes both. One thing they never are is boring.
I agree that JS is an incredible language. It is incredible that it has survived all the twists and turns of its development and dubious implementations. JS is frankly ass. Its DOM is an abomination and its semantics are cluttered and redundant. The scripts are crappy by necessity.
It continues thanks to inertia in browser development and the determination of fresh-minted programmers to remind themselves how smart they are by making their work hard. The toolkits exist because the work is soul-killing without them. They don't represent interest in JS so much as interest in making it go away.
I don't quite understand the role of lambda calculus for an ostensibly object-oriented language like JS, either. If it is a functional programming paradigm you are after, XSLT is an order of magnitude more coherent a language, in spite of its verbosity.
There are lots of excellent ways to talk about value. Almost none of them have to do with absurdities like the value of a human life. Compounding this with reference to some infinite horizon of all human potentialities makes the entire project an exercise in emotional masturbation.
It is a persistent problem with contemporary political discourse, or I would not have mentioned it at all.
the expected value of preventing them could be high, as it represents the value of all future human lives.
Cuts right to the chase, don't it? The value of all future human lives, indeed. Expressed as what, wish units? The projected value of all future human lives is precisely nil. Or the universe of possible value. Or both at the same time. Far more productive to spend the money on remedial large number training and statistics/reality differentiation.
FWIW, I recently discovered that the Android SDK requires an intel Mac. I am now scrounging friends for an old wintel box and CRT to run Linux because my G5 Powerbook is insufficient.
By that measure, slightly more restrictive than iPhone SDK.
. . . that [unimaginative] also derive more enjoyment from the hits . . .
If your enjoyment is constituted by conformity, the culture of mass-production works a treat, don't it? Lost in the the econometry is the adaptability of human desire.
every time you search the Web, get a movie recommendation from NetFlix, or speak to a telephone voice recognition system, tools developed . ..
to reach across the semantic gap.
Languages would be a lot more useful if it weren't for the people who use them, wouldn't they? But that it cannot be so is a fait accompli. Somehow, HCI is still trying to get its arms around these ideas. So much work yet to do. So much misdirected effort!
Almost thirty years ago I weighed the various Academies of our Faire Armed Services with an eye to taking an education at one of them. The Aire Force were then an arm in search of a hand in search of a mission.
Is it only here that the correct application of English language semantics can be regarded *insightful*? Or the willy-nilly introduction of a complete neologism as *informative*?
But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.
You've captured the essential conviction underlying current libertarian political outlooks, but there are ~160 years worth of laws on the books both in the US and in the other Western, liberal democracies which contend otherwise. The state has arrogated to itself a compelling interest in the quality of life of its subjects. This is the basis for a host of legislation and judicial precedent mandating the collectivisation of risk (insurance and bonding), outlawing suicide, abortion (pro and con), etc.
The demands of the industrialised state have militated this situation. Jefferson's idealized placement of the limits of state power were transgressed long ago. Those limits were untenable in light of the demands of industrialised production, if indeed they were ever workable or realistic.
Throttling is at the other end of the pipe, where they have you by the short and curlies. This is the latest salvo in another volley of lawsuits. This is the beginning of the end of teh internets. Soon you will have a public utility running a subsidized feed of advertisements and surveilance kit to your boxen, call it TV++.
Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade.
The research revealed that faces considered beautiful are average - with no extreme facial characteristics.
The procedure would seem to eliminate edge cases offensive to some. Sort of begs the question of semantics of beauty don't it? What could possibly be beautiful in any true sense about an average.
Middlebrow is not the same as tasteful and inoffensive is not the same as impressive.
Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world.
So's religion, or any conventional dogma. Many of them can be inordinately useful in understanding people and their motivations. Or motivating people and their understanding, for that matter.
it is clear from TFA that data mining simply means *beginning with a pile of data* rather than any particular manner of coping with it. The fault lies with the term rather than TFAs abuse of it. Like a lot of words that have been commandeered to stand as terms of art for programming and current tech, they mean in their new context what the interlocutor happens to think they mean. To whit:
funny, I was always taught my freedom of speech was meant to protect me from idiots who would label me a jackass because my opinion differed from theirs.
A common misapprehension. Your freedom of speech is intended to allow you to vent the spleen that is the inevitable result of your alienation. Free speech is not a mechanism for perfecting the understanding or developing our culture, it is a pressure release valve for maladapts. You may speak all the contemptible rubbish you like as long as you don't speak of that which cannot be spoken: whatever the current unspeakable threat to the status quo.
A sub-optimal implementation, in that it uses brute force instead of indexing
As though these are the exclusive choices. TFA goes on to complain about implementing 25 year old ideas, though they are actually rather older than that--they just didn't strike the RDB types until the eighties. They proceed to insist that the system cannot scale. Arguing google's scalability is like arguing gravity.
Theoretical physics has that luxury, dealing in pure abstraction. All reality may be ineffable, indeed, but human communication is diachronic, as is human attention.
We are dealing in the interactions of collections of particles called beings; rather, collections of those collections.
Your comment floored me, but on second glance it is at once right as rain and false as a wooden nickel.
Part of our "evil" plan to control the entire world involves us performing acts of espionage against just about every other country.
Nothing *evil* about our plans or anyone elses.
because that's how a country survives.
I consider rather that countries survive by learning how to evade history, the hysterical story of global capitalism. See another of my replies to TFA.
Your primary mistake is not to overstate the risk, but to misplace it. *Nations* do not function as discrete moral units in social interaction with each other. The accidents that constitute *nations* are acting in accordance with the collective expression of their political class's historical imaginary.
The only thing that threatens our national accident is the realization on the part of its constituents that the formalism is a parasitic drag upon our potential as individuals and as elective political groups, that is: history itself.
It is not a matter of *nice* [sic--ethics] but of ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no, sale does not enter into it. One of the primary precedents for the expanded interpretation of the Commerce clause is Wickard vs. Filburn from 1942. SCOTUS determined that an Ohio man growing wheat as fodder for his animals and no other purpose was nevertheless subject to Federal limits on production and consequently liable for the statutory fine for his actions. The mere existence of Filburn's wheat was considered to have a *substantial economic effect,* according to the majority.
Yes!
For the first time, scholars and reviewers could quote briefly from copyrighted works without having to pay fees.
Prior to 1909 these arrangements were not unregulated. Often the fees were often nominal or wholly foregone. These fees did not significantly impair the ability of authors to react for and against, or academics to cite, previous work.
Better yet, in fuller response to the ostensible value of *fair use*, a term of 7 years might be more efficacious.
same old solution: vigilance.
This is an exceptionally pernicious metaphor. We do often prefer one idea to another, but a market does not exist. One idea is right and one is wrong and the choice is usually a false one. Choosing what others have chosen is a CYA tactic and not a way to conduct one's intellectual life. This result demonstrates man the social animal impeding man the rational animal.
These are not new problems and are not limited to democracies of taste or meritocratic capitalism. One of the more interesting results was the *new band* question. Participant is asked if they had heard of these four new bands, one of which was spurious. The profile of recognition was statistically identical to that for the three real, but little known, new bands. Respondents need to be seen as knowing, whether they have actual knowledge or not. This makes clear that musical taste as a function of personal identity formation and not music appreciation. The big labels have know this for years: it doesn't matter who you front as long as you flood the airwaves and hype the sucker.
That said, there are a handful of people in all times and places who do not consider themselves tied to their peer's taste; who strive to think for themselves. They usually have unique access to actual ideas. They are often shunned by their peers because they call into question the intellectual shorthand everyone else contents themselves with. They are either crackpots or geniuses, sometimes both. One thing they never are is boring.
I agree that JS is an incredible language. It is incredible that it has survived all the twists and turns of its development and dubious implementations. JS is frankly ass. Its DOM is an abomination and its semantics are cluttered and redundant. The scripts are crappy by necessity.
It continues thanks to inertia in browser development and the determination of fresh-minted programmers to remind themselves how smart they are by making their work hard. The toolkits exist because the work is soul-killing without them. They don't represent interest in JS so much as interest in making it go away.
I don't quite understand the role of lambda calculus for an ostensibly object-oriented language like JS, either. If it is a functional programming paradigm you are after, XSLT is an order of magnitude more coherent a language, in spite of its verbosity.
the reality of such statements
There are lots of excellent ways to talk about value. Almost none of them have to do with absurdities like the value of a human life. Compounding this with reference to some infinite horizon of all human potentialities makes the entire project an exercise in emotional masturbation.
It is a persistent problem with contemporary political discourse, or I would not have mentioned it at all.
the expected value of preventing them could be high, as it represents the value of all future human lives.
Cuts right to the chase, don't it? The value of all future human lives, indeed. Expressed as what, wish units? The projected value of all future human lives is precisely nil. Or the universe of possible value. Or both at the same time. Far more productive to spend the money on remedial large number training and statistics/reality differentiation.
FWIW, I recently discovered that the Android SDK requires an intel Mac. I am now scrounging friends for an old wintel box and CRT to run Linux because my G5 Powerbook is insufficient.
By that measure, slightly more restrictive than iPhone SDK.
. . . that [unimaginative] also derive more enjoyment from the hits . . .
If your enjoyment is constituted by conformity, the culture of mass-production works a treat, don't it? Lost in the the econometry is the adaptability of human desire.
Notice where the work is felt:
.
every time you search the Web, get a movie recommendation from NetFlix, or speak to a telephone voice recognition system, tools developed . .
to reach across the semantic gap.
Languages would be a lot more useful if it weren't for the people who use them, wouldn't they? But that it cannot be so is a fait accompli. Somehow, HCI is still trying to get its arms around these ideas. So much work yet to do. So much misdirected effort!
Touch hasn't gone anywhere. There isn't a restaurant in a Merka that doesn't sport a touch interface, if'n they have a POS system.
Almost thirty years ago I weighed the various Academies of our Faire Armed Services with an eye to taking an education at one of them. The Aire Force were then an arm in search of a hand in search of a mission.
They don't seem to have found their a**hole yet.
We should pay attention. This bossy, little China is the model for the new Merka the Republicrats have in mind for us.
All the joys of capitalism without the pain of real competetion. Recipe for disaster it is.
Is it only here that the correct application of English language semantics can be regarded *insightful*? Or the willy-nilly introduction of a complete neologism as *informative*?
Pace, Billy.
But your actions in assuming responsibility for my debts don't give you any legitimate authority over my behavior.
You've captured the essential conviction underlying current libertarian political outlooks, but there are ~160 years worth of laws on the books both in the US and in the other Western, liberal democracies which contend otherwise. The state has arrogated to itself a compelling interest in the quality of life of its subjects. This is the basis for a host of legislation and judicial precedent mandating the collectivisation of risk (insurance and bonding), outlawing suicide, abortion (pro and con), etc.
The demands of the industrialised state have militated this situation. Jefferson's idealized placement of the limits of state power were transgressed long ago. Those limits were untenable in light of the demands of industrialised production, if indeed they were ever workable or realistic.
+1
Throttling is at the other end of the pipe, where they have you by the short and curlies. This is the latest salvo in another volley of lawsuits. This is the beginning of the end of teh internets. Soon you will have a public utility running a subsidized feed of advertisements and surveilance kit to your boxen, call it TV++.
Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade.
From TFA:
The research revealed that faces considered beautiful are average - with no extreme facial characteristics.
The procedure would seem to eliminate edge cases offensive to some. Sort of begs the question of semantics of beauty don't it? What could possibly be beautiful in any true sense about an average.
Middlebrow is not the same as tasteful and inoffensive is not the same as impressive.
Astrology is sort of a flawed mental shortcut for understanding the world.
So's religion, or any conventional dogma. Many of them can be inordinately useful in understanding people and their motivations. Or motivating people and their understanding, for that matter.
it is clear from TFA that data mining simply means *beginning with a pile of data* rather than any particular manner of coping with it. The fault lies with the term rather than TFAs abuse of it. Like a lot of words that have been commandeered to stand as terms of art for programming and current tech, they mean in their new context what the interlocutor happens to think they mean. To whit:
architecture
ontology
object
virtual
And a host of others.
funny, I was always taught my freedom of speech was meant to protect me from idiots who would label me a jackass because my opinion differed from theirs.
A common misapprehension. Your freedom of speech is intended to allow you to vent the spleen that is the inevitable result of your alienation. Free speech is not a mechanism for perfecting the understanding or developing our culture, it is a pressure release valve for maladapts. You may speak all the contemptible rubbish you like as long as you don't speak of that which cannot be spoken: whatever the current unspeakable threat to the status quo.
A sub-optimal implementation, in that it uses brute force instead of indexing
As though these are the exclusive choices. TFA goes on to complain about implementing 25 year old ideas, though they are actually rather older than that--they just didn't strike the RDB types until the eighties. They proceed to insist that the system cannot scale. Arguing google's scalability is like arguing gravity.
Theoretical physics has that luxury, dealing in pure abstraction. All reality may be ineffable, indeed, but human communication is diachronic, as is human attention.
We are dealing in the interactions of collections of particles called beings; rather, collections of those collections.
Your comment floored me, but on second glance it is at once right as rain and false as a wooden nickel.
Part of our "evil" plan to control the entire world involves us performing acts of espionage against just about every other country.
Nothing *evil* about our plans or anyone elses.
because that's how a country survives.
I consider rather that countries survive by learning how to evade history, the hysterical story of global capitalism. See another of my replies to TFA.
Your primary mistake is not to overstate the risk, but to misplace it. *Nations* do not function as discrete moral units in social interaction with each other. The accidents that constitute *nations* are acting in accordance with the collective expression of their political class's historical imaginary.
The only thing that threatens our national accident is the realization on the part of its constituents that the formalism is a parasitic drag upon our potential as individuals and as elective political groups, that is: history itself.
It is not a matter of *nice* [sic--ethics] but of ignorance.
to quote Lynval Golding. What did your mother teach you about everyone jumping off a bridge, anyway?
Indeed the United States would be foolish to sit back as others engage in cyberespionage.
I think the activity is more at punking than espionage, in any case.