Second, why is this a problem with CC? It would be a problem with anyone placing a copyrighted work under any license, or even claiming copyright on a work copyrighted by someone else. It's more a problem with copyright and the legal system. Well, with any other copyright, I think there's very stringent usage rights set and signed for and everyone's aware of who's using who's material. Not so in the CC world, or at least they don't want it that way. So it's a bigger problem there because people are 'free' to use everything and I'm sure there's sites out there hosting CC sound clips and images and the like. This kind of orgy of use is what makes CC particularly vulnerable to these scam artists. The article appears to complain about the case where a 12-year-old takes a copyrighted, non-CC-licensed commercial photo from a third party, removes any copyright notice, and put its up under a CC license. GP has it right -- this is no different than if the 12-year-old takes that same image and sells it to a third party, or simply hands it to someone and says, "you can use this photo I took for any purpose you like." The same rights and remedies apply, and it really has nothing to do with the CC at all.
If your web site uses captcha, you get spam from posting your email address online, or you just want to help out the Internet Archive's book project, check out recaptcha. It's a captcha based around helping recognize difficult-to-OCR scans.
Interestingly, each one of these has two USB 2.0 host ports. So you could just chain a whole bunch together or, with a little additional off-the-shelf hardware (i.e., USB cables), create a more efficient topology of parallel USB key computers. Add in some software for communication over these USB channels, and you've got a USB Beowulf cluster-to-go.
(Yes, there are all sorts of issues with actually doing this, from getting power to chained USB devices to topological efficiency to latency to power/cost/computational efficiency. It's just fun to think about.)
Really? Obvious? Except that it's not important to me. I thought that width being important was obvious. Perhaps your head is too far in your own preferences (my previous sentence was a joke) to see that not everyone has the same requirements.
If it's about seamlessly fitting in your pocket and not sticking out, then why doesn't how tall it is matter? I'm not following the logic there.
But the main point is that I'm not even debating what the most important features are to the most people, or whether Apple has researched it. Nor am I debating whether it's a good design -- I happen to think it's a great design. My point is that they put things in the chart that they are competitive on, and not things which they are not. The fact that the iPhone is taller than a lot of phones and has no GPS makes for a bad comparison chart, so they don't put those things in. It doesn't necessarily make for a bad phone, and I never said it did.
To summarize: I think it's a great phone, and that doesn't change the fact that the comparison chart is designed (like most such charts) to omit things which don't make the phone look good by comparison.
By that logic, GPS is a physical attribute when related to the use of battery time. GPS uses battery, too.
GPS wasn't included because it's not an iPhone feature. Not that I blame Apple -- feature comparison charts rarely list features that the product advertised doesn't have at all (like GPS) or where the metric in question makes your product look worse (width). They're not being completely forthcoming, but no one ever is. That's what third-party reviewers are (theoretically) for.
Likewise, I'd like to see some data to back up "slimness is what people care about" vs. "slimness is what is easy to advertise and what they like to emphasize." I can only give anecdotal evidence here, but I care about width more than thickness because I have to take it in and out of my pocket (it's why I don't like the Q), and I have at least one other friend who has a similar concern. I think this is really about the same thing as above -- only displaying what makes you look good.
If you're talking about the highlighting, yes. Opera had it for years, Firefox has had it for quite a while.
But the fancy pulsing effect is the important new thing. That's what makes me able to see which one is currently highlighted. My eye is far more attracted to the motion than to an often-subtle color change against an often-confusing background. Sure, poor page design fits in, but it's something we live with, and the pulse is hugely helpful to me.
BTW, new in Safari is also the big box around the text (not just highlighted text) but that's minor.
-snarkbot
p.s. That said, I'm back on Firefox for the moment.:)
Wow, someone finally improved the "Find" feature in browsers. In Safari 3.0 (which I'm using to browse/. right now), when you do a find, it highlights all the occurrences of the search text. Pretty normal. But then when you have it select the next occurrence, the newly highlighted text has a bright orange background with a white box around it which "pulses" by growing bigger and smaller once. Makes it way easier to see where the next occurrence is. It's possible I'm the only one who hates painfully searching for the currently highlighted text (especially in oddly colored web pages), but I doubt it.
Someone should make a Mozilla extension for this, if possible.:)
-snarkbot
p.s. Though I browsed with Safari, I ended up having to post with Mozilla. And type it twice. Preview showed that it was only going to post the first half of it, and selecting all the text and copying likewise only copied the first half of the text box. But hey, it's a beta.
I think you accidentally summed up the situation in your earlier post. By not having net neutrality, you no longer are limited by the vagaries of each site's (using the term loosely to contrast with ISP) hardware. Instead, you are forced into lower service because someone else paid the ISP to make it that way, and not because of anything the site did to their setup.
I like the car analogy, although like pretty much all analogies, it's imperfect: Why should drivers be subject to the vagaries of the parts and manufacturing quality of their vehicles? Why not just shunt all Toyota drivers into one lane if Toyota doesn't pay up, and then Toyotas will travel at a nice, consistent, slow speed. And everyone else will be faster!
Okay, maybe I'm being a nitpicker, but it's what I do:
Is anyone else bothered by the nomenclature here? The summary refers to "valid people seeking employment." One comment below mentions how little "illegal people" will work for.
Okay, "illegal immigration" is fine. They're immigrating illegally. Even "illegal immigrant," while I don't love it, makes sense -- it's implicitely referring to the illegal act. But no matter how you feel about immigration, people who immigrate illegally are "valid people" and "legal people." The law cannot make your existence as a person invalid or illegal (death penalty notwithstanding). Using that language is just another way to dehumanize illegal immigrants to make the question of how to deal with immigration less messy than it actually is. But I'm curious: is anyone else bothered by it, or is this just me lawyering in the dark?
-snarkbot
p.s. I'm sure someone will disagree and say that they're invalid people or not legally allowed to be people, but someone is always at the far end of crazy.
Something that has been bothering me about your post (which I found otherwise informative): 6-bit panels do not show 16.2 million colors, they show 262,144 colors (that's 2^18). Dropping even 1 bit from 24 would bring you down to roughly 8.4 million. 16.2 million colors just doesn't make any sense numerically, and I've always assumed that it was just a common mistake, and they really meant 16.7 million. Is that not the case?
A good point, and doubly so because no one has ever taken the time to respond to my "-1; Wrong" snarks before and point out the downside of adding one. It just gets frustrating when the mod system hides the replies at 1 which correct the parent at 4 or 5. Not that I have a solution.:)
For the record, parent is correct, GP is not. Parody is generally protected, and satire is generally not. Someone should mod accordingly. (Still no -1; Wrong though.)
Here is a treatment which I just found on the web, and so do not vouch for. Other descriptions are easy to find.
How do his results compare to the predictions of sports commentators, or anyone else with a lot of knowledge and experience who makes public predictions? While the idea is cool and probably has a lot of potential in the long run, "right more than wrong in 5 of 6 years" doesn't sound particularly impressive to me, or to my crazy sports fan coworker sitting next to me...
This might get modded "Redundant," but I've seen so many arguments below about who copied whose idea, who's pretending to innovate, who is good, and who is evil, that I thought it would be helpful to point out:
They also said they would be fine with other stores doing it. Chances are pretty high that they also approached Microsoft, probably simultaneously, and that the details just took longer to hammer out and MS didn't want Apple to take all of the credit. Note the "may be close to signing a deal" language -- it takes a long time for big companies to get a deal signed.
-snarkbot
p.s. It is possible MS saw Apple doing it before they considered it, but that's a pretty damned quick turnaround time for a deal like this.
You've pasted a link about a lack of royalties for streaming and distributing AAC content. GGP (which might be you, can't tell) said there were no royalties for making devices which can decode and play AAC content. This is incorrect. Another AC in this thread has posted a link to the actual encoder/decoder royalties, so I won't repeat him/her.
I know I'm way late posting this (this article has been up in my browser for quite a while), but i just wanted to point out that the parent is more or less completely inapplicable to this case. Also, while those cited by parent are three forms of civil remedies, there are a good number of other common remedial forms in civil cases. Those include some extremely important ones, some of which are equitable, not compensatory (for example, injunctions).
More importantly, this is not a common law suit. This is a copyright infringement suit under federal copyright statutes. While copyright infringement suits like this are civil suits, the remedies are defined by statute (not citing due to laziness), and include some things similar to those listed in parent (actual damages) as well as others. The others include injunctions and statutory damages, which is a set range of money per work infringed, regardless of actual damages.
So while parent is largely correct in its description, its not describing this case at all.
Just to clear something up: disenfranchisement is loss of the right to vote. It is very different from loss of citizenship (denaturalization) or "kicking people out" (exile).
GP is talking about the fact that in some states, felons permanently lose their right to vote. They're still citizens, and they can still live in the state, they just no longer get a say in who governs them. I think GP is also pointing out that a ridiculously large fraction of our country is "felons," and therefore potentially has no say in their governance. I think GP is suggesting that there is a racial component to it as well, as it keeps a disproportionate number of blacks from voting as compared to whites. I'm not sure whether or not that's a motivation for the system, but there can be no doubt that that is an effect of it.
-snarkbot
p.s. Yes, written from the point of view of a U.S. citizen.
Under U.S. law, it is satire, not parody (see next person's post). Satire is not (generally) protected, and therefore this is probably copyright infringement.
You can make a fair use argument if you want. It's plausible... but probably unsuccessful in the end.
"A base station is tethered to the sea bed at a known depth and GPS location." Why does it have to be a "GPS" location? Once the depth and location are known, why is GPS needed at all for this system? (This is a serious question -- I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the setup described.)
Unless the base station is 1) going to move; 2) close enough to the surface to receive GPS signals; and 3) powerful enough in transmission/reception to communicate with submarines, I'm just not sure what the "GPS" aspect is for.
Slashdot Mirror
If your web site uses captcha, you get spam from posting your email address online, or you just want to help out the Internet Archive's book project, check out recaptcha. It's a captcha based around helping recognize difficult-to-OCR scans.
-snarkbot
Looks like you've already been modded down, but just to be helpful: They are the same thing (at least when the factor is > 1, such as 1.05 here).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series
-snarkbot
Interestingly, each one of these has two USB 2.0 host ports. So you could just chain a whole bunch together or, with a little additional off-the-shelf hardware (i.e., USB cables), create a more efficient topology of parallel USB key computers. Add in some software for communication over these USB channels, and you've got a USB Beowulf cluster-to-go.
(Yes, there are all sorts of issues with actually doing this, from getting power to chained USB devices to topological efficiency to latency to power/cost/computational efficiency. It's just fun to think about.)
-snarkbot
Really? Obvious? Except that it's not important to me. I thought that width being important was obvious. Perhaps your head is too far in your own preferences (my previous sentence was a joke) to see that not everyone has the same requirements.
If it's about seamlessly fitting in your pocket and not sticking out, then why doesn't how tall it is matter? I'm not following the logic there.
But the main point is that I'm not even debating what the most important features are to the most people, or whether Apple has researched it. Nor am I debating whether it's a good design -- I happen to think it's a great design. My point is that they put things in the chart that they are competitive on, and not things which they are not. The fact that the iPhone is taller than a lot of phones and has no GPS makes for a bad comparison chart, so they don't put those things in. It doesn't necessarily make for a bad phone, and I never said it did.
To summarize: I think it's a great phone, and that doesn't change the fact that the comparison chart is designed (like most such charts) to omit things which don't make the phone look good by comparison.
-snarkbot
By that logic, GPS is a physical attribute when related to the use of battery time. GPS uses battery, too.
GPS wasn't included because it's not an iPhone feature. Not that I blame Apple -- feature comparison charts rarely list features that the product advertised doesn't have at all (like GPS) or where the metric in question makes your product look worse (width). They're not being completely forthcoming, but no one ever is. That's what third-party reviewers are (theoretically) for.
Likewise, I'd like to see some data to back up "slimness is what people care about" vs. "slimness is what is easy to advertise and what they like to emphasize." I can only give anecdotal evidence here, but I care about width more than thickness because I have to take it in and out of my pocket (it's why I don't like the Q), and I have at least one other friend who has a similar concern. I think this is really about the same thing as above -- only displaying what makes you look good.
-snarkbot
Suicide isn't a crime in the vast majority of jurisdictions.
And, as my sibling points out, that's not what Habeas Corpus means.
-snarkbot
If you're talking about the highlighting, yes. Opera had it for years, Firefox has had it for quite a while.
:)
But the fancy pulsing effect is the important new thing. That's what makes me able to see which one is currently highlighted. My eye is far more attracted to the motion than to an often-subtle color change against an often-confusing background. Sure, poor page design fits in, but it's something we live with, and the pulse is hugely helpful to me.
BTW, new in Safari is also the big box around the text (not just highlighted text) but that's minor.
-snarkbot
p.s. That said, I'm back on Firefox for the moment.
Wow, someone finally improved the "Find" feature in browsers. In Safari 3.0 (which I'm using to browse /. right now), when you do a find, it highlights all the occurrences of the search text. Pretty normal. But then when you have it select the next occurrence, the newly highlighted text has a bright orange background with a white box around it which "pulses" by growing bigger and smaller once. Makes it way easier to see where the next occurrence is. It's possible I'm the only one who hates painfully searching for the currently highlighted text (especially in oddly colored web pages), but I doubt it.
:)
Someone should make a Mozilla extension for this, if possible.
-snarkbot
p.s. Though I browsed with Safari, I ended up having to post with Mozilla. And type it twice. Preview showed that it was only going to post the first half of it, and selecting all the text and copying likewise only copied the first half of the text box. But hey, it's a beta.
I think you accidentally summed up the situation in your earlier post. By not having net neutrality, you no longer are limited by the vagaries of each site's (using the term loosely to contrast with ISP) hardware. Instead, you are forced into lower service because someone else paid the ISP to make it that way, and not because of anything the site did to their setup.
I like the car analogy, although like pretty much all analogies, it's imperfect: Why should drivers be subject to the vagaries of the parts and manufacturing quality of their vehicles? Why not just shunt all Toyota drivers into one lane if Toyota doesn't pay up, and then Toyotas will travel at a nice, consistent, slow speed. And everyone else will be faster!
-snarkbot
Yes, Apache has a good reputation for security, but like most popular, complex programs, its history is far from exploit-free.
-snarkbot
Ah! This makes perfect sense. Thanks! -snarkbot
Okay, maybe I'm being a nitpicker, but it's what I do:
Is anyone else bothered by the nomenclature here? The summary refers to "valid people seeking employment." One comment below mentions how little "illegal people" will work for.
Okay, "illegal immigration" is fine. They're immigrating illegally. Even "illegal immigrant," while I don't love it, makes sense -- it's implicitely referring to the illegal act. But no matter how you feel about immigration, people who immigrate illegally are "valid people" and "legal people." The law cannot make your existence as a person invalid or illegal (death penalty notwithstanding). Using that language is just another way to dehumanize illegal immigrants to make the question of how to deal with immigration less messy than it actually is. But I'm curious: is anyone else bothered by it, or is this just me lawyering in the dark?
-snarkbot
p.s. I'm sure someone will disagree and say that they're invalid people or not legally allowed to be people, but someone is always at the far end of crazy.
Something that has been bothering me about your post (which I found otherwise informative): 6-bit panels do not show 16.2 million colors, they show 262,144 colors (that's 2^18). Dropping even 1 bit from 24 would bring you down to roughly 8.4 million. 16.2 million colors just doesn't make any sense numerically, and I've always assumed that it was just a common mistake, and they really meant 16.7 million. Is that not the case?
-snarkbot
A good point, and doubly so because no one has ever taken the time to respond to my "-1; Wrong" snarks before and point out the downside of adding one. It just gets frustrating when the mod system hides the replies at 1 which correct the parent at 4 or 5. Not that I have a solution. :)
Thanks!
-snarkbot
For the record, parent is correct, GP is not. Parody is generally protected, and satire is generally not. Someone should mod accordingly. (Still no -1; Wrong though.)
Here is a treatment which I just found on the web, and so do not vouch for. Other descriptions are easy to find.
-snarkbot
How do his results compare to the predictions of sports commentators, or anyone else with a lot of knowledge and experience who makes public predictions? While the idea is cool and probably has a lot of potential in the long run, "right more than wrong in 5 of 6 years" doesn't sound particularly impressive to me, or to my crazy sports fan coworker sitting next to me...
-snarkbot
This might get modded "Redundant," but I've seen so many arguments below about who copied whose idea, who's pretending to innovate, who is good, and who is evil, that I thought it would be helpful to point out:
EMI approached Apple.
They also said they would be fine with other stores doing it. Chances are pretty high that they also approached Microsoft, probably simultaneously, and that the details just took longer to hammer out and MS didn't want Apple to take all of the credit. Note the "may be close to signing a deal" language -- it takes a long time for big companies to get a deal signed.
-snarkbot
p.s. It is possible MS saw Apple doing it before they considered it, but that's a pretty damned quick turnaround time for a deal like this.
You've pasted a link about a lack of royalties for streaming and distributing AAC content. GGP (which might be you, can't tell) said there were no royalties for making devices which can decode and play AAC content. This is incorrect. Another AC in this thread has posted a link to the actual encoder/decoder royalties, so I won't repeat him/her.
-snarkbot
I know I'm way late posting this (this article has been up in my browser for quite a while), but i just wanted to point out that the parent is more or less completely inapplicable to this case. Also, while those cited by parent are three forms of civil remedies, there are a good number of other common remedial forms in civil cases. Those include some extremely important ones, some of which are equitable, not compensatory (for example, injunctions).
More importantly, this is not a common law suit. This is a copyright infringement suit under federal copyright statutes. While copyright infringement suits like this are civil suits, the remedies are defined by statute (not citing due to laziness), and include some things similar to those listed in parent (actual damages) as well as others. The others include injunctions and statutory damages, which is a set range of money per work infringed, regardless of actual damages.
So while parent is largely correct in its description, its not describing this case at all.
-snarkbot
Just to clear something up: disenfranchisement is loss of the right to vote. It is very different from loss of citizenship (denaturalization) or "kicking people out" (exile).
GP is talking about the fact that in some states, felons permanently lose their right to vote. They're still citizens, and they can still live in the state, they just no longer get a say in who governs them. I think GP is also pointing out that a ridiculously large fraction of our country is "felons," and therefore potentially has no say in their governance. I think GP is suggesting that there is a racial component to it as well, as it keeps a disproportionate number of blacks from voting as compared to whites. I'm not sure whether or not that's a motivation for the system, but there can be no doubt that that is an effect of it.
-snarkbot
p.s. Yes, written from the point of view of a U.S. citizen.
Under U.S. law, it is satire, not parody (see next person's post). Satire is not (generally) protected, and therefore this is probably copyright infringement. You can make a fair use argument if you want. It's plausible... but probably unsuccessful in the end.
"A base station is tethered to the sea bed at a known depth and GPS location." Why does it have to be a "GPS" location? Once the depth and location are known, why is GPS needed at all for this system? (This is a serious question -- I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the setup described.)
Unless the base station is 1) going to move; 2) close enough to the surface to receive GPS signals; and 3) powerful enough in transmission/reception to communicate with submarines, I'm just not sure what the "GPS" aspect is for.
-snarkbot