Video and sound aside, I be astonished if you could compress just the text of the script of a full length film in 8k.
Bottom line, impossible. Not even worth a more detailed analysis.
My Master's thesis involved studying the Cell processor, and due to cost, the only way I could get a hold of one was via the PS3. In fact, when I bought the PS3, the guy at Best Buy was surprised I wasn't buying any games for it. I told him I plan on installing Linux on it and was going to investigate the internal architecture of the Cell processor.
I never would have bought the system if it hadn't been for the 'Other OS' feature in the first place. I am sure glad I finished my work in 2008, I'd be screwed if I hadn't. Now I'm faced with the risk of bricking it if I update it. Nice.
I'd take the challenge. I'd ask God the following question:
"God, did you create the world and all that is in it?"
"Yes, I did"
Since God is an omniscient being and incapable of deceit, any answer He gives has the quality of absolute perfection and truthfulness.
QED.
The politics in America are completely upside down. People pay the most attention to national elections, which have the least influence on their daily lives, while local elections go virtually unnoticed. Plus, third party candidates are never given fair time. SO it's not so matter of voting not giving power, people don't realize which votes really count.
This is because media outlets are lazy, picking up a story or feed from the AP or your national office about the main contenders in a presidential race is easy. Putting a reporter on the street to cover po-dunk county's school board isn't nearly as easy, or exciting.
Although, it all boils down to an uneducated public. If people realized what elections mattered most, they'd demand coverage for those elections. But it seems we're all lazy uneducated dotards. Is there any hope for us?
Ad hominem, that's always an excellent way to start a debate in scientific circles. If this is an example of neutrality, lack of bias, and objectivity, then I'm frightened.
Libertarians don't support anarchy, they advocate smaller government that doesn't overreach it's constitutionally defined boundaries.
That being said, there is probably no reason to have a government mandated solution for this. And it would be wise to see if existing laws already address this issue. If not, then MAYBE a new law is needed, but only as a last resort.
But all too often the new law is the first and only solution. Oh how would we survive a day without the government babysitters?
Difficult to answer this question without considering speed and space requirements in addition to simply trying to maximize your utility for suggested movies.
Speed requirements? Sure, you can build a decision tree/table from millions of entries from imdb, but can you generate results in the required time based on changing user preferences for millions of users? How dangerous is a so-so suggestion versus a 'please wait, I'm working message'?
Space requirements? Do you have the machine memory and disk space required by your algorithm? Millions of users, thousands of movies, and millions of viewed movies and ratings? When you build your data structures used for your predictions, you probably don't want to start from scratch and recalculate it each time the user updates some of their preferences.
Does the algorithm scale well? Is it's performance predictable given the size of the data set? It might work great with tons of data, but does it perform well with less data? There might be times you need the algorithm to run really quick with mediocre results and maybe want detailed analysis with a larger dataset.
Plus, what is the risk of suggesting an unenjoyable movie? If the risk is low, then a simpler algorithm and/or one that uses less data might be beneficial.
If your computer was compromised (trojen, stolen laptop, etc) your legitimately purchased and watermarked music collection might end up all over the internet. Sure they'd be traceable back to you, but you didn't do anything wrong.
Or what about if you decide to sell your watermarked music and destroy all your copies when you do the transfer in order to do everything 'by the book'. Then the guy who bought it puts it on a file sharing network?
Just check the contents of the posts against his homework solutions. If any of them match, it seems like a open and shut case. Number of offenses shouldn't matter. 1 offense is grounds for expulsion.
This has got to be the most balanced and thoughtful approach to scientific analysis I've read in a long time. I get the impression that doubt in scientific circles is heresy. But anyone who has ever found a mistakes in scientific journal or other scholarly work realizes there's no better way to find the truth than a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt.
Fade into obscurity? All these pro-creationist movements are not born of the work of single individuals or even small groups. It seems pretty clear that a LARGE number of Americans are on board with the pro-creationism movement.
I for one don't have all the answers, but I cringe when I meet someone who thinks they do. I for one am far more comforted putting my faith and belief into God instead of Darwin
As a Christian, though, I am not surprised when creationism is met with bitter opposition and hatred. After all, when you stand up for the truth, people will hate and they might even kill you for it. Look at what happened to Jesus.
I'm reluctantly forced to side with you and agree the use of the song violated #3 of the fair use guidelines, but for a different reason. I do not think time is an excellent indicator of 'amount' in relation to a musical work, especially popular iconic works such as "Let's Go Crazy". Most modern rock songs are 3-4 minutes long and using only 20-30 seconds of the song can capture nearly the entire essence of the original work.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I honestly don't see why it should concern anyone if any number of languages die off from lack of use or popularity. Extinction is a natural process.
Interesting observation and I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day most people are far more impressed with shiny buttons than an understanding of the theoretical foundations of computer science.
On a side note:
I think Devry grads are just as well equipped to be software developers as the graduates of more traditional 4 year CS programs. What Devry grads might lack background and depth, they often make up for that in practical know how and determination. I've worked with numerous Devry grads and Big-10 CS grads in my career as a software developer, it's often pretty hard to tell the difference between the two.
'Subserviant near-slave class'? What on earth are you talking about? They're the ones sneaking over the border for these jobs. If they think they are being treated unfairly, then they're free to turn themselves in and they'll get a free ride home.
I wish some of these slashdot discussions on intellectual property rights would actually debate legal issues and attempt serious discussion, rather than approach the issue under the assumption that all digital file sharing is right because you say it is.
I'd love to see a coherent argument addressing the protection of filesharing rights or an argument that even attempted to discuss the delicate balance between intellectual property rights and fair use doctrines. Instead we get 'discussion' from people who say that paying to see a movie is absurd and claim that content producers should produce better quality films so we'll actually start paying for them. Nice, argument. I steal your stuff because it's crap, if you sold something better then I would pay for it? How juvenile.
BTW, all you people who share your CD collections and buy pirated copies of movies have already screwed everyone else over. Fair use has already taken a big hit because legislators (in response to your blatant theft) have now made it illegal for me to actually make a legitimate backup copy of some of my more commonly used DVDs and software disks.
Why don't anarchist-thieves-big-corporation-hating-sticking- it-to-the-man types do a little homework on intellectual property rights issues and come back and post when you're done. You might find out there actually are legal arguments you can make that will actually give you some credibility and perhaps decision makers will actually start paying attention to you instead of ignoring you.
I think you are right to question legality as an absolute standard. But while our founding fathers articulately and eloquently defined their justifications for their treason, I think most pro-filesharing types come across as uninformed spoiled children who think they have some God given right to share their CD collections with people all over the world.
Filesharers rarely (if ever) acknowledge the critical issue of protecting property rights, all they care about is getting their music for free. This juvenile attitude is preventing serious debate between copyright and fair use that needs to take place.
When creationists try to present creation theory in the classroom, alongside evolutionary viewpoints, they are viciously attacked. If evolutionary theory is so sound, and creationism is such a farce, why not let them stand side to side and see who wins? Let the almighty scientific method do it's work and bring forth the truth.
Come on, evolution should win in a landslide, shouldn't it? It shouldn't take our students more than a couple of weeks to poke holes all over that fairy-tale-laden-creationist account of the origin of life.
And if evolution is such a sound and bullet-proof scientific theory, our young students should be able to use their training and test the hypothesis. What an awesome exercise for students, to disprove (or discover supporting evidence) for one viewpoint or the other.
That was a funny line in the movie, but this comment really exposes people bias against copyright holders.
Copyright (in principle) isn't only about money. The protection of one's ideas from misuse is the larger issue. Often, in our society, this protection has monetary motivation, but it doesn't have to be limited to this.
Take the New International Version of the Bible for example. It is copyrighted, but I doubt the reason was to protect some organization's monetary interests. Besides, for evangelistic reasons, most Christian organizations don't try to make obtaining the word of God difficult for others as a matter of principle.
But the NIV Bible is copyrighted to protect the integrity of the work from possible misuse or misquotation, just in case. The NIV has a reputation associated with it, and a tool by which they can protect themselves from harm is copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Video and sound aside, I be astonished if you could compress just the text of the script of a full length film in 8k. Bottom line, impossible. Not even worth a more detailed analysis.
My Master's thesis involved studying the Cell processor, and due to cost, the only way I could get a hold of one was via the PS3. In fact, when I bought the PS3, the guy at Best Buy was surprised I wasn't buying any games for it. I told him I plan on installing Linux on it and was going to investigate the internal architecture of the Cell processor. I never would have bought the system if it hadn't been for the 'Other OS' feature in the first place. I am sure glad I finished my work in 2008, I'd be screwed if I hadn't. Now I'm faced with the risk of bricking it if I update it. Nice.
I'd take the challenge. I'd ask God the following question: "God, did you create the world and all that is in it?" "Yes, I did" Since God is an omniscient being and incapable of deceit, any answer He gives has the quality of absolute perfection and truthfulness. QED.
The politics in America are completely upside down. People pay the most attention to national elections, which have the least influence on their daily lives, while local elections go virtually unnoticed. Plus, third party candidates are never given fair time. SO it's not so matter of voting not giving power, people don't realize which votes really count. This is because media outlets are lazy, picking up a story or feed from the AP or your national office about the main contenders in a presidential race is easy. Putting a reporter on the street to cover po-dunk county's school board isn't nearly as easy, or exciting. Although, it all boils down to an uneducated public. If people realized what elections mattered most, they'd demand coverage for those elections. But it seems we're all lazy uneducated dotards. Is there any hope for us?
Ad hominem, that's always an excellent way to start a debate in scientific circles. If this is an example of neutrality, lack of bias, and objectivity, then I'm frightened.
Libertarians don't support anarchy, they advocate smaller government that doesn't overreach it's constitutionally defined boundaries.
That being said, there is probably no reason to have a government mandated solution for this. And it would be wise to see if existing laws already address this issue. If not, then MAYBE a new law is needed, but only as a last resort.
But all too often the new law is the first and only solution. Oh how would we survive a day without the government babysitters?
Speed requirements? Sure, you can build a decision tree/table from millions of entries from imdb, but can you generate results in the required time based on changing user preferences for millions of users? How dangerous is a so-so suggestion versus a 'please wait, I'm working message'?
Space requirements? Do you have the machine memory and disk space required by your algorithm? Millions of users, thousands of movies, and millions of viewed movies and ratings? When you build your data structures used for your predictions, you probably don't want to start from scratch and recalculate it each time the user updates some of their preferences.
Does the algorithm scale well? Is it's performance predictable given the size of the data set? It might work great with tons of data, but does it perform well with less data? There might be times you need the algorithm to run really quick with mediocre results and maybe want detailed analysis with a larger dataset. Plus, what is the risk of suggesting an unenjoyable movie? If the risk is low, then a simpler algorithm and/or one that uses less data might be beneficial.
Or what about if you decide to sell your watermarked music and destroy all your copies when you do the transfer in order to do everything 'by the book'. Then the guy who bought it puts it on a file sharing network?
Just check the contents of the posts against his homework solutions. If any of them match, it seems like a open and shut case. Number of offenses shouldn't matter. 1 offense is grounds for expulsion.
There's a difference between lack of understanding and doubt.
This has got to be the most balanced and thoughtful approach to scientific analysis I've read in a long time. I get the impression that doubt in scientific circles is heresy. But anyone who has ever found a mistakes in scientific journal or other scholarly work realizes there's no better way to find the truth than a healthy dose of skepticism and doubt.
Fade into obscurity? All these pro-creationist movements are not born of the work of single individuals or even small groups. It seems pretty clear that a LARGE number of Americans are on board with the pro-creationism movement.
I for one don't have all the answers, but I cringe when I meet someone who thinks they do. I for one am far more comforted putting my faith and belief into God instead of Darwin
As a Christian, though, I am not surprised when creationism is met with bitter opposition and hatred. After all, when you stand up for the truth, people will hate and they might even kill you for it. Look at what happened to Jesus.
He didn't need to go to China to ask that question.
I'm reluctantly forced to side with you and agree the use of the song violated #3 of the fair use guidelines, but for a different reason. I do not think time is an excellent indicator of 'amount' in relation to a musical work, especially popular iconic works such as "Let's Go Crazy". Most modern rock songs are 3-4 minutes long and using only 20-30 seconds of the song can capture nearly the entire essence of the original work.
Not trying to start a flame war, but I honestly don't see why it should concern anyone if any number of languages die off from lack of use or popularity. Extinction is a natural process.
Interesting observation and I understand what you are saying, but at the end of the day most people are far more impressed with shiny buttons than an understanding of the theoretical foundations of computer science.
On a side note:
I think Devry grads are just as well equipped to be software developers as the graduates of more traditional 4 year CS programs. What Devry grads might lack background and depth, they often make up for that in practical know how and determination. I've worked with numerous Devry grads and Big-10 CS grads in my career as a software developer, it's often pretty hard to tell the difference between the two.
'Subserviant near-slave class'? What on earth are you talking about? They're the ones sneaking over the border for these jobs. If they think they are being treated unfairly, then they're free to turn themselves in and they'll get a free ride home.
I'd love to see a coherent argument addressing the protection of filesharing rights or an argument that even attempted to discuss the delicate balance between intellectual property rights and fair use doctrines. Instead we get 'discussion' from people who say that paying to see a movie is absurd and claim that content producers should produce better quality films so we'll actually start paying for them. Nice, argument. I steal your stuff because it's crap, if you sold something better then I would pay for it? How juvenile.
BTW, all you people who share your CD collections and buy pirated copies of movies have already screwed everyone else over. Fair use has already taken a big hit because legislators (in response to your blatant theft) have now made it illegal for me to actually make a legitimate backup copy of some of my more commonly used DVDs and software disks.
Why don't anarchist-thieves-big-corporation-hating-sticking- it-to-the-man types do a little homework on intellectual property rights issues and come back and post when you're done. You might find out there actually are legal arguments you can make that will actually give you some credibility and perhaps decision makers will actually start paying attention to you instead of ignoring you.
I think you are right to question legality as an absolute standard. But while our founding fathers articulately and eloquently defined their justifications for their treason, I think most pro-filesharing types come across as uninformed spoiled children who think they have some God given right to share their CD collections with people all over the world. Filesharers rarely (if ever) acknowledge the critical issue of protecting property rights, all they care about is getting their music for free. This juvenile attitude is preventing serious debate between copyright and fair use that needs to take place.
When creationists try to present creation theory in the classroom, alongside evolutionary viewpoints, they are viciously attacked. If evolutionary theory is so sound, and creationism is such a farce, why not let them stand side to side and see who wins? Let the almighty scientific method do it's work and bring forth the truth.
Come on, evolution should win in a landslide, shouldn't it? It shouldn't take our students more than a couple of weeks to poke holes all over that fairy-tale-laden-creationist account of the origin of life.
And if evolution is such a sound and bullet-proof scientific theory, our young students should be able to use their training and test the hypothesis. What an awesome exercise for students, to disprove (or discover supporting evidence) for one viewpoint or the other.
The truth will set us free.
and I wish secular humanists would keep their evolution dogma out of our schools too.
The way I see it is, if someone can do it better and/or cheaper, then Negroponte is the ONLY looser.
That was a funny line in the movie, but this comment really exposes people bias against copyright holders. Copyright (in principle) isn't only about money. The protection of one's ideas from misuse is the larger issue. Often, in our society, this protection has monetary motivation, but it doesn't have to be limited to this. Take the New International Version of the Bible for example. It is copyrighted, but I doubt the reason was to protect some organization's monetary interests. Besides, for evangelistic reasons, most Christian organizations don't try to make obtaining the word of God difficult for others as a matter of principle. But the NIV Bible is copyrighted to protect the integrity of the work from possible misuse or misquotation, just in case. The NIV has a reputation associated with it, and a tool by which they can protect themselves from harm is copyright.