Notice the confusion in the comments between market choice and *economy* in its most general sense: the system of differential value that drives decision-making and theories of semantic relationship. Each share qualities with games of partial information. Neither is sufficient to fully inform resilient HCI decisions.
For information theory less is often more. For market decisions, more is more, given a metastasized domain of perfect information efficiency and ideal, rational actors. For real, interaction-driven computing, the order an application intends brings to a domain should drive the interface.
Re:Use the right tool for the job
on
CSS Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
For example, "fair use" means you can quote a few words from a textbook, but cannot repeat the whole book. "Fair use" also means you can play a few seconds of a song, or a few seconds of a movie without permission or penalty.
You are mistakenly conflating two forms in the statutory basis for fair use: borrowing for purposes of quotation or criticism and limits on commercial exploitation.
It is perfectly legal to spend an afternoon photocopying a complete book in your public library and lugging the reams of 8.5X11 home with you, if your purposes are scholarly or educational and you have no intention of commercial redistribution. Mr. Sherman is pleased by your confusion in this regard and your mistaken guidance to the hoi polloi. In fact, they are relying not upon the deterrent effect of a handful of lawsuits, but the great murk that this tactic generates around these questions in the public discourse.
It is perfectly legal to make complete copies of any copyrighted work provided there is no commercial intent and no restraint of commerce (read: giving them out for free and destroying the market) and anyone who will tell you otherwise is mistaken or lying. Grokster died not because copies existed on its servers or servers it indexed, but because it had no way of guaranteeing that those copies were not commercially exploited or that restraint of trade was not occurring. It purposefully marketed this anonymity of purpose as a value-add.
That created an awareness in me of the shift in entertainment options out there, and if I'm feeling that others are too.
I'm feeling, Peter, that you're feeling influential enough to generate feelings among the hoi-polloi, the better to feel your wingnut investment a bit heavier on the hip.
You did not mean to say that. The scientific method does not admit of *conclusive* (final) proof of anything. One of the things that fuels the pseudo-science industries is this occasional sloppiness on the part of scientists and science journalists. They may be definitive, exhaustive or comprehensive, but scientific judgements are never privileged by finality beyond the pale of pure abstractions like mathematics.
Wait, you mean that a company that wronged me and my fellow countrymen might be under legal penalty?
That concern was the basis for the Congressional assertion of the scope of Presidential authority under color of state secrecy: limitation of liability for pet defense contractors. I think we can anticipate some extra-judicial relief for the Telecomms will be mooted in Congress in short order.
The Reg is leading with a story putting meat on the bones of the contention in the article that Xen is *not ready for prime-time*.
It will be interesting to see who's chumming, who's fishing and who's cutting bait when this boat comes in. Is it possible VMWare is trolling Oracle for an offer, playing hardball like this?
1. Any free or extra goods, usually given to employees or workers.
I appreciate arguing about slang semantics is a good way to look stupid, but schwag had been free promo gear for at least twenty years prior to the stoner connotation. To avoid confusion, we've taken to referring to the grade formerly known as schwag as *the Imperial*, with all the connotations of cheap liquor upbranding itself with transparent puffery like *her majesty's imprimatur*, etc.
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. -- Phillip Greenspun's 10th Rule of Programming
I don't believe it was intended to contain an alias (in Sowa's sense) or a general nomenclatura, however. This innovation actually undercuts the *semantic web* fairly radically, by confusing names with types, proper nouns with classes, as discussed in the second chapter of his Knowledge Representation.
XML, as pointed out clearly elsewhere in the thread, is a conventional syntax for the representation of heterogeneous schemata. An XSL stylesheet is a deterministic means of defining the relationship between such schemata and mediating their discrepancies and gaps.
This method seems to be a social convention relying upon some contemporary user-agent (and user) behaviors. The article itself apparently conflates the functional separation of data and formatting with a system of semantic definition; though we can credit the author for recognizing this and other shortcomings in the article ("This code looks a bit complicated . ..") A far cleaner method by any measure is to mediate the relationship between domain semantics and presentation or syndication semantics via a SAX-driven XSL transform performed by either the client or the server.
Of course the "service sector" revolves around IP and the creation and maintainance of it.* The other kind of "service" is "would you like fries with that", but you can't build much of an economy on that.
Blinking a few little industries like Financial Services (banking, corporate, private, hedge and mutual fund management and advisory services); Corporate Services (outsourcing of payroll, HR, fulfillment, customer service or IT); Legal Services (anything other than IP law); Medical Services; et. al.
I think you'll find the french fry and clean linen group just isn't putting up the numbers necessary to account for the growth of service industries in the national GDP. There is some fuzziness in semantics; recall that line cooks have been mooted to be *manufacturing* hamburgers.
Winnie was the sort of guy who expected the political nation to recognize his paraphrase of Herodotus. He was decidedly not the sort to recognize the levels of samizdat burdening every eschatology. The oft-garbled rest of the quote:
Yes, the *state secrets privilege* was established in the 50's precisely to limit liability claims against pet military procurement contractors, not to guard secrets. The current case would seem to be a tailor-made situation for the invocation of these dubious privileges.
. ..how do we balance the player's desire for freedom with the designer's desire to tell a consistent, coherent story. . ..
This tension is an essential element of classical (Freudian) phychology. Substitute the terms Id and Ego for player and designer, respectively. Indeed, in a post-structuralist view (informed by Lacan), any discourse structured as a narrative (that is, nearly all, internal or external), Perlin's Law offers interpretive value. For example, a measure of the bounds of normativity for an internal discourse (whether you consider yourself crazy) is a function of Perlin's Law over the constituent terms of that internal narrative.
Further study: Can we apply the concept to shared narratives like normative social behavior or political formation? Is the concept redundant with the contributions of the Frankfurt School?
Extra credit: Does this idea offer a description of the development of political reaction in response to sharply divergent, even orthogonal, shared narratives (q.v.--the Bush team vs. *the reality-based community*)? Is it persuasive?
Indeed, credibility has been a consistent focus of Rhetoric since the inception of the Western cultural tradition. Perhaps Mr. Perlin's own modesty should prevail over the enthusiasms of the geek community in general and Mr. Adams in particular?
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
Given what little we've been able to glean about these programs (which increasingly appear part of a broad, focused initiative to enable domestic information gathering without *wiretapping*) and that thousands of false leads seem decidedly counter-productive, their primary utility appears to be the extortion of political opponents and intimidation of the press.
And no, there is no oversight. That is the statutory role of the FISA court, whose creation was in direct response to the preceived need for warrantless surveillance. This court was avoided precisely because the true scope of this fishing expedition is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, as the court would have informed Cheney, Hayden, Gonzalez, et. al. directly and in no uncertain terms.
Dubya makes Tricky Dick look like a patsy. These actions have threatened the foundation of the Republic and as they have sown, so shall they reap. Far from strengthening authority, they are challenging American's respect for it; this will not be without consequences for the health of our political system. Let's not forget that the *malaise* of the Carter years was largely a consequence of the betrayal of America's trust in civil institutions by a sitting President.
Look at the wording of the main question highlighted in the results:
It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
This positions the question and conditions the answer. It leaves out any information about what the NSA organ-grinders could conceivably be doing with a stream of data without any conversion to an audible signal. Candidate call patterns are then fed to mining tools, where the un-heard, un-recorded conversations are un-analysed and deconstructed. No actual *wiretapping* of blameless, patriotic Americans occurs until a critical mass of de-contextualized nouns is aggregated and the system pops to the UI. It doesn't take much of a technical imagination to make the process, tools and outcomes (thousands of bogus leads) seem at once more sinister and more laughable.
The lead-in questions also forcefully position the conversation between poller and pollee on the subject of federal anti-terror efforts, rather than a referendum on the value of our noble abstractions.
Of course, the study did not look at what men were able to tell about women by looking at photographs of their female body parts. ..
Nor did it address those things men and women are able to tell about each other without so much as a glance.
Which is more important, your testosterone level or the fact that you're an unfeeling lunk, a good-for-nothing and a layabout; her complaisance or the fact that she's an inconstant and judgemental control freak?
Slashdot Mirror
Notice the confusion in the comments between market choice and *economy* in its most general sense: the system of differential value that drives decision-making and theories of semantic relationship. Each share qualities with games of partial information. Neither is sufficient to fully inform resilient HCI decisions.
For information theory less is often more. For market decisions, more is more, given a metastasized domain of perfect information efficiency and ideal, rational actors. For real, interaction-driven computing, the order an application intends brings to a domain should drive the interface.
Or XSL.
For example, "fair use" means you can quote a few words from a textbook, but cannot repeat the whole book. "Fair use" also means you can play a few seconds of a song, or a few seconds of a movie without permission or penalty.
You are mistakenly conflating two forms in the statutory basis for fair use: borrowing for purposes of quotation or criticism and limits on commercial exploitation.
It is perfectly legal to spend an afternoon photocopying a complete book in your public library and lugging the reams of 8.5X11 home with you, if your purposes are scholarly or educational and you have no intention of commercial redistribution. Mr. Sherman is pleased by your confusion in this regard and your mistaken guidance to the hoi polloi. In fact, they are relying not upon the deterrent effect of a handful of lawsuits, but the great murk that this tactic generates around these questions in the public discourse.
It is perfectly legal to make complete copies of any copyrighted work provided there is no commercial intent and no restraint of commerce (read: giving them out for free and destroying the market) and anyone who will tell you otherwise is mistaken or lying. Grokster died not because copies existed on its servers or servers it indexed, but because it had no way of guaranteeing that those copies were not commercially exploited or that restraint of trade was not occurring. It purposefully marketed this anonymity of purpose as a value-add.
That created an awareness in me of the shift in entertainment options out there, and if I'm feeling that others are too.
I'm feeling, Peter, that you're feeling influential enough to generate feelings among the hoi-polloi, the better to feel your wingnut investment a bit heavier on the hip.
Just a feeling.
. . . conclusive proof of dark matter.
You did not mean to say that. The scientific method does not admit of *conclusive* (final) proof of anything. One of the things that fuels the pseudo-science industries is this occasional sloppiness on the part of scientists and science journalists. They may be definitive, exhaustive or comprehensive, but scientific judgements are never privileged by finality beyond the pale of pure abstractions like mathematics.
Wait, you mean that a company that wronged me and my fellow countrymen might be under legal penalty?
That concern was the basis for the Congressional assertion of the scope of Presidential authority under color of state secrecy: limitation of liability for pet defense contractors. I think we can anticipate some extra-judicial relief for the Telecomms will be mooted in Congress in short order.
+1 Righteous.
She can't take much more of this cap'n.
.
James . . . Kirk . . .
I sense a whole new class of jokes on the horizon.
The Reg is leading with a story putting meat on the bones of the contention in the article that Xen is *not ready for prime-time*.
It will be interesting to see who's chumming, who's fishing and who's cutting bait when this boat comes in. Is it possible VMWare is trolling Oracle for an offer, playing hardball like this?
same word; if one considers slang first-class sema and not mere affectation.
1. Any free or extra goods, usually given to employees or workers.
I appreciate arguing about slang semantics is a good way to look stupid, but schwag had been free promo gear for at least twenty years prior to the stoner connotation. To avoid confusion, we've taken to referring to the grade formerly known as schwag as *the Imperial*, with all the connotations of cheap liquor upbranding itself with transparent puffery like *her majesty's imprimatur*, etc.
when browsers have built in support.
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. -- Phillip Greenspun's 10th Rule of Programming
I don't believe it was intended to contain an alias (in Sowa's sense) or a general nomenclatura, however. This innovation actually undercuts the *semantic web* fairly radically, by confusing names with types, proper nouns with classes, as discussed in the second chapter of his Knowledge Representation.
.") A far cleaner method by any measure is to mediate the relationship between domain semantics and presentation or syndication semantics via a SAX-driven XSL transform performed by either the client or the server.
XML, as pointed out clearly elsewhere in the thread, is a conventional syntax for the representation of heterogeneous schemata. An XSL stylesheet is a deterministic means of defining the relationship between such schemata and mediating their discrepancies and gaps.
This method seems to be a social convention relying upon some contemporary user-agent (and user) behaviors. The article itself apparently conflates the functional separation of data and formatting with a system of semantic definition; though we can credit the author for recognizing this and other shortcomings in the article ("This code looks a bit complicated . .
Of course the "service sector" revolves around IP and the creation and maintainance of it.* The other kind of "service" is "would you like fries with that", but you can't build much of an economy on that.
Blinking a few little industries like Financial Services (banking, corporate, private, hedge and mutual fund management and advisory services); Corporate Services (outsourcing of payroll, HR, fulfillment, customer service or IT); Legal Services (anything other than IP law); Medical Services; et. al.
I think you'll find the french fry and clean linen group just isn't putting up the numbers necessary to account for the growth of service industries in the national GDP. There is some fuzziness in semantics; recall that line cooks have been mooted to be *manufacturing* hamburgers.
Winnie was the sort of guy who expected the political nation to recognize his paraphrase of Herodotus. He was decidedly not the sort to recognize the levels of samizdat burdening every eschatology. The oft-garbled rest of the quote:
. . . agitprop is written by the losers.
Yes, the *state secrets privilege* was established in the 50's precisely to limit liability claims against pet military procurement contractors, not to guard secrets. The current case would seem to be a tailor-made situation for the invocation of these dubious privileges.
. . .how do we balance the player's desire for freedom with the designer's desire to tell a consistent, coherent story. . . .
This tension is an essential element of classical (Freudian) phychology. Substitute the terms Id and Ego for player and designer, respectively. Indeed, in a post-structuralist view (informed by Lacan), any discourse structured as a narrative (that is, nearly all, internal or external), Perlin's Law offers interpretive value. For example, a measure of the bounds of normativity for an internal discourse (whether you consider yourself crazy) is a function of Perlin's Law over the constituent terms of that internal narrative.
Further study: Can we apply the concept to shared narratives like normative social behavior or political formation? Is the concept redundant with the contributions of the Frankfurt School?
Extra credit: Does this idea offer a description of the development of political reaction in response to sharply divergent, even orthogonal, shared narratives (q.v.--the Bush team vs. *the reality-based community*)? Is it persuasive?
Indeed, credibility has been a consistent focus of Rhetoric since the inception of the Western cultural tradition. Perhaps Mr. Perlin's own modesty should prevail over the enthusiasms of the geek community in general and Mr. Adams in particular?
Like frog's legs.
a massive, industry-wide kludge for targeting the devices at the presentation tier.
+1
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
Given what little we've been able to glean about these programs (which increasingly appear part of a broad, focused initiative to enable domestic information gathering without *wiretapping*) and that thousands of false leads seem decidedly counter-productive, their primary utility appears to be the extortion of political opponents and intimidation of the press.
And no, there is no oversight. That is the statutory role of the FISA court, whose creation was in direct response to the preceived need for warrantless surveillance. This court was avoided precisely because the true scope of this fishing expedition is in direct violation of the 4th Amendment, as the court would have informed Cheney, Hayden, Gonzalez, et. al. directly and in no uncertain terms.
Dubya makes Tricky Dick look like a patsy. These actions have threatened the foundation of the Republic and as they have sown, so shall they reap. Far from strengthening authority, they are challenging American's respect for it; this will not be without consequences for the health of our political system. Let's not forget that the *malaise* of the Carter years was largely a consequence of the betrayal of America's trust in civil institutions by a sitting President.
Quite.
Look at the wording of the main question highlighted in the results:
It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
This positions the question and conditions the answer. It leaves out any information about what the NSA organ-grinders could conceivably be doing with a stream of data without any conversion to an audible signal. Candidate call patterns are then fed to mining tools, where the un-heard, un-recorded conversations are un-analysed and deconstructed. No actual *wiretapping* of blameless, patriotic Americans occurs until a critical mass of de-contextualized nouns is aggregated and the system pops to the UI. It doesn't take much of a technical imagination to make the process, tools and outcomes (thousands of bogus leads) seem at once more sinister and more laughable.
The lead-in questions also forcefully position the conversation between poller and pollee on the subject of federal anti-terror efforts, rather than a referendum on the value of our noble abstractions.
Of course, the study did not look at what men were able to tell about women by looking at photographs of their female body parts. .
Nor did it address those things men and women are able to tell about each other without so much as a glance.
Which is more important, your testosterone level or the fact that you're an unfeeling lunk, a good-for-nothing and a layabout; her complaisance or the fact that she's an inconstant and judgemental control freak?