But it's hard for me to imagine programming at the age of 7 (other then a VCR or something), I really didn't have the information or environment until I had a internet hookup.
Kids these days! I learned to program on a Sinclair ZX-81 when I was 10. Back in the day we had these things called magazines, but they weren't like the magazines of today. Back then, the magazines had useful information in them like full program listings with commentary by the author about the design decisions. Some magazines had an ongoing contest to see who could write the neatest program in a single line of BASIC code. In addition, we had these things called Libraries that have Books in them that also had fully commented programs for various computers (Mostly, Commodore and Apple). Most of the software I used that I didn't write came from magazines and books, not computer stores.
Not being able to imagine learning to program without an internet connection kind of boggles my mind. The internet has only really been around in the general public for, what, 15 years? What do you think people did with computers from 1950 - 1990?
Your argument is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. You presume that no middle ground can be found between banning laptops and "banning every possible distraction"
As an above thread discusses, the question is really one of how much regulation is approprate. The professor would certainly not put up with a bunch of people in the back shouting to each other. And we would expect that E would put up with the occasional sneeze. So the line is somewhere in the middle and the question is where do laptops fit on the continuum.
I think that a continuous distraction of nearby students would qualify for a ban and playing games on a laptop would certainly fit that description, while taking notes probably doesn't.
If the professor has determined by observation that laptops are more often a distraction than a benefit then E might as well ban them.
Also, if you're playing games on your laptop why did you bother to go to class? I know that I skipped out on classes that weren't useful to me all the time. If the professor is banning laptops AND grading on attendance then the professor is a fool. -- JimFive
I mostly agree with you. However, 2-D with glasses isn't 3-D either. It's 2-D with glasses.
A holographic projection box that truly displays a 3-d environment (e.g. you can walk around it to see the back of the scene) would be 3D. Anything less is 2-D with gimmicks to fool the brain. -- JimFive
Appeal to authority MAY be a fallacy, depending on the actual expertise of the authority appealed to. Citing a study is an appeal to authority, but it is not necessarily fallacious.
If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe.
But, I see you've got the Fallacy of Ambiguity down pat. -- JimFive
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
I'm going to pretend that you're not trolling and answer the question.
All of your examples question Global Climate Change(hereafter GCC) not just Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) so there are two different questions.
To falsify AGW while maintaining that GCC exists would require that someone find mechanisms that account for (all) measured climatic changes. Yes, that is a very high bar.
To falsify GCC (and by extension AGW) would require one of:
Determining that the methods used to measure (pre)historic temperatures is so inadequate as to be useless.
Gathering enough consistently collected data to show that the climate models were wrong.
Showing that Greenhouse gasses aren't.
There are probably others...
So, yes, the theory is falsifiable. However, in the words of an astronomer that gave a talk when I was in college: "If we find out that it's wrong, we'll change the theory, don't think we won't." So, in the sense that GCC is part of the greater science of Climatology, no. Pieces of theories are falsified and the theory is modified to account for the new information, the Theory doesn't die so much as it adapts.
To get back to the article--Last year it was reported that Alaska was getting record amounts of snow and I heard people use this as a "see! GCC isn't true". However, anyone who has lived in a truly cold area can tell you that it can be too cold to snow. Record snows during an Alaskan winter are almost certainly a sign of warmer temperatures. This article is a response to the idea that "see! This snow proves that GCC isn't true", the article is NOT saying that this storm was caused by GCC, just that it doesn't disprove GCC.
NO single weather event tells us anything about the truth or falsity of GCC. -- JimFive
Practically every part in every car is a vendor part. When I worked for an automotive supplier GM was talking about having the vendors' employees in the assembly plant installing the parts on the chassis. -- JimFive
Why can't google (or ) still copy and digitize all the books in question, but not release them to the public? Copying for copying sake (read: not distributing) should be fine in this case.
Probably still technically against copyright because Google does not own copies of the books in question. There is a difference between you ripping a CD that you bought and you ripping a CD that you checked out from the library.
However, I think Google's best option is to perform due diligence in trying to track down the copyright holder and then go ahead and put it out anyway. Google is just trying to avoid a bunch of repetitive lawsuits, but if they can show that the book is out of print (no actual damages) and that they put reasonable effort into finding the copyright holder they should be pretty safe in court. (Safe meaning, found to be infringing but not ordered to pay huge fines or to cease all similar activity). -- JimFive
The opt-out approach is entirely necessary to Google's goals in this project, specifically with regards to so-called "orphaned works".
How are Google's goals relevant to whether this is legal or not? It doesn't seem reasonable that Google can "make a settlement" with all unknown rights holders. It seems to me that the only legitimate option for Google is to perform due diligence to attempt to identify each individual rights holder, if found make a deal, if not found put it up and deal with each challenge individually. Since these are orphaned works there probably won't be that many challenges (if there are, Google would need to revisit its due diligence process). Google is trying to be lazy and say that this is too much work, but the other option "Just put everything out there and wait for challenges" seems to be more risky. At least if they are reasonably diligent their damages would be mitigated. With Google's proposed method they are relying on (especially the heirs of) rights holders to not know that they own the rights to an infringed book. -- JimFive
It's however much you are willing to pay for the game. Done.
The Free Market argument. The only problem is the Free market requires that both sides of the transaction have access to all of the information necessary for making an informed decision. This condition is not met in the video game market. The purchaser does not know (can not know), in advance, how much enjoyment E is going to get out of the game. Reviews can only get you so far. -- JimFive
While Pixar avoided the uncanny valley for humans in Up, they didn't for the dogs (at least for me). Except for the one friendly (and cartoonish) dog, I found the other dogs very creepy. -- JimFive
And really, except for stains, just putting the clothes in a tub of water with detergent and agitating them with a paddle gets them as clean as your modern washing machine. Stains are the only thing that need the scrub board. -- JimFive
I personally don't see a long term future with wrist watch computers, though the wrist may be an ok place to put the brains of the computer. Personally, I think eyeware/earware is the right direction,
I think the long term is something like bluetooth. You have the computer(CPU and storage, maybe cell hardware) as a small(2"x2"x0.2" or less) object in your pocket. All interface devices are connected wirelessly. You could have a "phone" handset that you pull out and dial with, or a headset with voice dialing. You could display on an iphone sized display, a monitor, or a projector. Your headphones could have the song selection controls built in or as a separate device (or require a separate keyboard, but nobody would buy that one.) You could even have a watch (that syncs to time,even) that could double as a keyboard, or have a mini screen if you really wanted to, but the brains would all be in your pocket (or in your purse, or on your keychain).
Basically, you take a smart phone and give it the ability to externalize all of the interface functions with a standard protocol so that the phone can stay in your pocket if you want it to. -- JimFive
Yes, you missed, Trolling. You gave a great description of spam. But nothing that meets the definition of trolling, you know, to catch a fish. -- JimFive
When I'm cycling on the streets and come to a stop light or stop sign, I keep my place in line with the cars. It seems rude to ride past up to the intersection just to be passed again when the light changes. Due to the way the roads are on my route from work, I keep to the side for the stop sign and take the middle of the lane for the stop light. I will agree that riding the pedestrian walk (legal and mostly reasonable as no one walks in my town) is less safe as the car drivers don't yield right of way to someone on the sidewalk. -- JimFive
How does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give you the right to copy a book? Except maybe you confused the right to publicly speak and/or publish about our grievances with our government,
Let's parse it out.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press" That is a legitimate clause of the First amendment. I note first of all that there is no limitation that this right only exists for public, political publishing. Creating a book is clearly within the freedom of the press, any book. The content of the book is up to the printer/publisher, not the government. It is arguable that the printing of said content does not require the permission of the author because requiring permission would be an abridgment of the freedom of the press.
However, the constitution clearly gives the government the authority to grant and enforce copyright which overrides this entire argument. -- JimFive
maybe you should then sell something other than the digital good. say 10k signed copies of the book. The rights to make it a movie. posters, action figures, cards, etc. Performances of your book. The stage adaptation.
If there is no copyright then there is no way to sell the other "rights" you listed, either. The only two things on your list that are possible are the signed copies and the performance by the author. -- JimFive
The 4th amendment does not prohibit search/seizure without a warrant; it prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure without a warrant. "Reasonable" can be determined by statute, subject to review by the courts.
Actually, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of whether there is a warrant. The existance of a warrant allows a search to be presumed reasonable. -- JimFive
2) not made in US (shipping offsets power savings)
One CFL bulb lasts about 8 times as long as a normal bulb. Let's assume that you're using crappy ones which only last 4 times as long - even with the shorter lifespan, you can ship a CFL bulb 4 times the distance of an incandescent bulb without generating any extra waste.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this part does not compute. You are comparing apples to oranges. The amount of extra distance you can ship without generating extra waste is a function of the shipping method and is certainly not going to be 1:1 -- JimFive
What's wrong with the security and sharing model of Facebook? It seems to offer comprehensive and granular control to me -- by far the best privacy controls of any site I've used.
Their security is insufficient until I can group contacts (they're not friends) into categories (e.g. family, work, friends1, friends2, etc) and assign privacy controls to individual posted items based on those categories.
Secondly, application access should not be all or nothing. The application API should force a granular security setting that the applications are forced to follow. The Birthday reminder app should only have access to my birthday, not my school or city and certainly not my list of friends.
Not particularly a security feature, but I would also like to be able to control what shows up on the home page by category, not individual application. Because, really, I only want to see real posts by real people, not "Which Twilight character are you?" crap.
-- JimFive
On a DVD, a movie is just a binary number, so, ergo, there are a finite number of possible movies
What? The set of binary numbers is finite? The set of binary numbers that will fit on a DVD is finite. I'm not sure that there is a finite number of ways of interpreting that number into video, however.
I've also wondered if there's a finite number of, say, playable games of chess.
Yes, there is a finite number. No, I don't know what it is. Chess rules limit the game in certain situations. A position can only be repeated 3 times before the game is a draw. If there is no piece capture or pawn move for 50 moves then the game is a draw. This means that there is a longest game. If there is a longest game then there must be a finite number of games. I have read that the longest possible legal game is 5949 moves, but I don't know how this was calculated. -- JimFive
She mentioned they had her on a regimen of "negative feedback." I inquired what that meant and she pointed out a sturdy rubber band around her wrist. "Every time I begin a ritual I snap the rubber band. The pain becomes associated with the ritual and eventually you will stop.
I always like to point out that this is NOT negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is removing a stimulus in order to encourage a behavior.
The above describes adding a stimulus in order to discourage behavior. This is termed positive punishment c.f. Operant Conditioning.
And after I wrote all of this I note that you said "negative feedback", not reinforcement. I think my basic idea still stands that if I were in counseling and the counselor didn't use proper terminology I would be concerned about es abilities. -- JimFive
May I ask why marrying her was a mistake? The way I look at things right now, being sweet, (somewhat) attractive, caring and generally having a good personality, are more important in a woman than being intelligent. I'd really like to know why you now think that that's wrong.
I'm not the original poster, but as someone who has been married over 11 years to an intelligent woman:
You have to talk to this person, every day, for the rest of your life. Sometimes about things that are complicated or intensely personal (e.g. child rearing, in-laws, etc). If your partner has a hard time articulating their thoughts about issues it can be very frustrating. Especially if the issue is why they're mad at you right now. Yes, being personable is good, and the difference between an IQ of 180 and 140 probably doesn't matter, but in the end, smart is better than dumb. To sum up, communication is the cornerstone of a lasting relationship, and if you and your partner don't communicate well with each other you will have problems. -- JimFive
My point re: Gnome/KDE is that no matter how well done their documentation is, most of the things people do on the computer are added on to the OS, not integral to it. And yes, third party is harder to deal with, but if, for example, Ubuntu, required a package to have a certain standard of documentation before including the package in the distribution that would go a long way.
So yea, maybe GNUCash isn't as precise with the documentation as Microsoft Money of Quicken or something, but that's just one App. While I do believe that it's generally true that FOSS has less end-user documentation and help screens as many of their non-free counter-parts, I don't agree that the problem is very substantial. Not when we have.. The Internet these days.
I'm guessing that this attitude is exactly the problem the original article is highlighting. I shouldn't have to spend any significant amount of time searching the internet to find out information about how to use a user interface feature of a piece of software. It's perfectly fine if I have to do some research to figure out how to use a program from the commandline or to do something obscure. It isn't acceptiable to have help files that do nothing more than show a screen cap and says:
"Formula: Enter your formula here."
I find this with a lot of the Linux GUI software. I picked on GnuCash because it's the one I'm most familiar with.
From the GnuCash Wiki (Not the first google hit, btw)
Q: How do I use variables and formula in scheduled transations?
A: In lieu of formal documentation, see the following: ...links to a usenet conversation from 2005...
Slashdot Mirror
But it's hard for me to imagine programming at the age of 7 (other then a VCR or something), I really didn't have the information or environment until I had a internet hookup.
Kids these days! I learned to program on a Sinclair ZX-81 when I was 10. Back in the day we had these things called magazines, but they weren't like the magazines of today. Back then, the magazines had useful information in them like full program listings with commentary by the author about the design decisions. Some magazines had an ongoing contest to see who could write the neatest program in a single line of BASIC code. In addition, we had these things called Libraries that have Books in them that also had fully commented programs for various computers (Mostly, Commodore and Apple). Most of the software I used that I didn't write came from magazines and books, not computer stores.
Not being able to imagine learning to program without an internet connection kind of boggles my mind. The internet has only really been around in the general public for, what, 15 years? What do you think people did with computers from 1950 - 1990?
Oh, yeah...Get off of my lawn!
--
JimFive
Your argument is a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. You presume that no middle ground can be found between banning laptops and "banning every possible distraction"
As an above thread discusses, the question is really one of how much regulation is approprate. The professor would certainly not put up with a bunch of people in the back shouting to each other. And we would expect that E would put up with the occasional sneeze. So the line is somewhere in the middle and the question is where do laptops fit on the continuum.
I think that a continuous distraction of nearby students would qualify for a ban and playing games on a laptop would certainly fit that description, while taking notes probably doesn't.
If the professor has determined by observation that laptops are more often a distraction than a benefit then E might as well ban them.
Also, if you're playing games on your laptop why did you bother to go to class? I know that I skipped out on classes that weren't useful to me all the time. If the professor is banning laptops AND grading on attendance then the professor is a fool.
--
JimFive
I mostly agree with you. However, 2-D with glasses isn't 3-D either. It's 2-D with glasses.
A holographic projection box that truly displays a 3-d environment (e.g. you can walk around it to see the back of the scene) would be 3D. Anything less is 2-D with gimmicks to fool the brain.
--
JimFive
Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Appeal to authority MAY be a fallacy, depending on the actual expertise of the authority appealed to. Citing a study is an appeal to authority, but it is not necessarily fallacious.
If authority mattered the earth would still be the center of the universe.
But, I see you've got the Fallacy of Ambiguity down pat.
--
JimFive
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
I'm going to pretend that you're not trolling and answer the question.
All of your examples question Global Climate Change(hereafter GCC) not just Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) so there are two different questions.
To falsify AGW while maintaining that GCC exists would require that someone find mechanisms that account for (all) measured climatic changes. Yes, that is a very high bar.
To falsify GCC (and by extension AGW) would require one of:
So, yes, the theory is falsifiable. However, in the words of an astronomer that gave a talk when I was in college: "If we find out that it's wrong, we'll change the theory, don't think we won't." So, in the sense that GCC is part of the greater science of Climatology, no. Pieces of theories are falsified and the theory is modified to account for the new information, the Theory doesn't die so much as it adapts.
To get back to the article--Last year it was reported that Alaska was getting record amounts of snow and I heard people use this as a "see! GCC isn't true". However, anyone who has lived in a truly cold area can tell you that it can be too cold to snow. Record snows during an Alaskan winter are almost certainly a sign of warmer temperatures. This article is a response to the idea that "see! This snow proves that GCC isn't true", the article is NOT saying that this storm was caused by GCC, just that it doesn't disprove GCC.
NO single weather event tells us anything about the truth or falsity of GCC.
--
JimFive
I think you'll find that this is warner music, not warner bros.
--
JimFive
Practically every part in every car is a vendor part. When I worked for an automotive supplier GM was talking about having the vendors' employees in the assembly plant installing the parts on the chassis.
--
JimFive
Probably still technically against copyright because Google does not own copies of the books in question. There is a difference between you ripping a CD that you bought and you ripping a CD that you checked out from the library.
However, I think Google's best option is to perform due diligence in trying to track down the copyright holder and then go ahead and put it out anyway. Google is just trying to avoid a bunch of repetitive lawsuits, but if they can show that the book is out of print (no actual damages) and that they put reasonable effort into finding the copyright holder they should be pretty safe in court. (Safe meaning, found to be infringing but not ordered to pay huge fines or to cease all similar activity).
--
JimFive
How are Google's goals relevant to whether this is legal or not? It doesn't seem reasonable that Google can "make a settlement" with all unknown rights holders. It seems to me that the only legitimate option for Google is to perform due diligence to attempt to identify each individual rights holder, if found make a deal, if not found put it up and deal with each challenge individually. Since these are orphaned works there probably won't be that many challenges (if there are, Google would need to revisit its due diligence process). Google is trying to be lazy and say that this is too much work, but the other option "Just put everything out there and wait for challenges" seems to be more risky. At least if they are reasonably diligent their damages would be mitigated. With Google's proposed method they are relying on (especially the heirs of) rights holders to not know that they own the rights to an infringed book.
--
JimFive
The Free Market argument. The only problem is the Free market requires that both sides of the transaction have access to all of the information necessary for making an informed decision. This condition is not met in the video game market. The purchaser does not know (can not know), in advance, how much enjoyment E is going to get out of the game. Reviews can only get you so far.
--
JimFive
While Pixar avoided the uncanny valley for humans in Up, they didn't for the dogs (at least for me). Except for the one friendly (and cartoonish) dog, I found the other dogs very creepy.
--
JimFive
And really, except for stains, just putting the clothes in a tub of water with detergent and agitating them with a paddle gets them as clean as your modern washing machine. Stains are the only thing that need the scrub board.
--
JimFive
I think the long term is something like bluetooth. You have the computer(CPU and storage, maybe cell hardware) as a small(2"x2"x0.2" or less) object in your pocket. All interface devices are connected wirelessly. You could have a "phone" handset that you pull out and dial with, or a headset with voice dialing. You could display on an iphone sized display, a monitor, or a projector. Your headphones could have the song selection controls built in or as a separate device (or require a separate keyboard, but nobody would buy that one.) You could even have a watch (that syncs to time,even) that could double as a keyboard, or have a mini screen if you really wanted to, but the brains would all be in your pocket (or in your purse, or on your keychain).
Basically, you take a smart phone and give it the ability to externalize all of the interface functions with a standard protocol so that the phone can stay in your pocket if you want it to.
--
JimFive
It sounds like your dad was at stage 4 of Kohlberg's scale. Of course, you were probably at stage 3 at the time so it wasn't completely useless.
And yes, I only posted this because I remembered it from that college ethics class 20 years ago.
--
JimFive
Yes, you missed, Trolling. You gave a great description of spam. But nothing that meets the definition of trolling, you know, to catch a fish.
--
JimFive
When I'm cycling on the streets and come to a stop light or stop sign, I keep my place in line with the cars. It seems rude to ride past up to the intersection just to be passed again when the light changes. Due to the way the roads are on my route from work, I keep to the side for the stop sign and take the middle of the lane for the stop light. I will agree that riding the pedestrian walk (legal and mostly reasonable as no one walks in my town) is less safe as the car drivers don't yield right of way to someone on the sidewalk.
--
JimFive
Let's parse it out.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press" That is a legitimate clause of the First amendment. I note first of all that there is no limitation that this right only exists for public, political publishing. Creating a book is clearly within the freedom of the press, any book. The content of the book is up to the printer/publisher, not the government. It is arguable that the printing of said content does not require the permission of the author because requiring permission would be an abridgment of the freedom of the press.
However, the constitution clearly gives the government the authority to grant and enforce copyright which overrides this entire argument.
--
JimFive
If there is no copyright then there is no way to sell the other "rights" you listed, either. The only two things on your list that are possible are the signed copies and the performance by the author.
--
JimFive
Actually, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures regardless of whether there is a warrant. The existance of a warrant allows a search to be presumed reasonable.
--
JimFive
While I agree with most of what you wrote, this part does not compute. You are comparing apples to oranges. The amount of extra distance you can ship without generating extra waste is a function of the shipping method and is certainly not going to be 1:1
--
JimFive
Their security is insufficient until I can group contacts (they're not friends) into categories (e.g. family, work, friends1, friends2, etc) and assign privacy controls to individual posted items based on those categories.
Secondly, application access should not be all or nothing. The application API should force a granular security setting that the applications are forced to follow. The Birthday reminder app should only have access to my birthday, not my school or city and certainly not my list of friends.
Not particularly a security feature, but I would also like to be able to control what shows up on the home page by category, not individual application. Because, really, I only want to see real posts by real people, not "Which Twilight character are you?" crap.
--
JimFive
What? The set of binary numbers is finite? The set of binary numbers that will fit on a DVD is finite. I'm not sure that there is a finite number of ways of interpreting that number into video, however.
Yes, there is a finite number. No, I don't know what it is. Chess rules limit the game in certain situations. A position can only be repeated 3 times before the game is a draw. If there is no piece capture or pawn move for 50 moves then the game is a draw. This means that there is a longest game. If there is a longest game then there must be a finite number of games. I have read that the longest possible legal game is 5949 moves, but I don't know how this was calculated.
--
JimFive
I always like to point out that this is NOT negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is removing a stimulus in order to encourage a behavior.
The above describes adding a stimulus in order to discourage behavior. This is termed positive punishment c.f. Operant Conditioning.
And after I wrote all of this I note that you said "negative feedback", not reinforcement. I think my basic idea still stands that if I were in counseling and the counselor didn't use proper terminology I would be concerned about es abilities.
--
JimFive
I'm not the original poster, but as someone who has been married over 11 years to an intelligent woman:
You have to talk to this person, every day, for the rest of your life. Sometimes about things that are complicated or intensely personal (e.g. child rearing, in-laws, etc). If your partner has a hard time articulating their thoughts about issues it can be very frustrating. Especially if the issue is why they're mad at you right now. Yes, being personable is good, and the difference between an IQ of 180 and 140 probably doesn't matter, but in the end, smart is better than dumb. To sum up, communication is the cornerstone of a lasting relationship, and if you and your partner don't communicate well with each other you will have problems.
--
JimFive
I'm guessing that this attitude is exactly the problem the original article is highlighting. I shouldn't have to spend any significant amount of time searching the internet to find out information about how to use a user interface feature of a piece of software. It's perfectly fine if I have to do some research to figure out how to use a program from the commandline or to do something obscure. It isn't acceptiable to have help files that do nothing more than show a screen cap and says: "Formula: Enter your formula here." I find this with a lot of the Linux GUI software. I picked on GnuCash because it's the one I'm most familiar with.
--
JimFive