A. Doesn't eye candy, etc still consume ram, and therefore power (I may be wrong on this, but it seems a little logical) B. It does matter under load, and under load it is consuming less power than the preceding version. C. Bloat and added features should make the computer use more power over time (you can argue that computer should be minimalistic, but more hardware out there, etc, tends to adds more bloat, if only in drivers, etc). It is still impressive that it is as close to a version 2.5 years ago as it is (not to mention that it is better than the previous version). D. I tend to think there may be more daemons waking up the comp, not a badly written one. More features = more daemons, therefore more wakeups.
I still say give major credit to linux (as the added item is a common to linux in general, but we are talking ubuntu in specific here) coders for keeping power and requirements down compared to both other major os's and while adding tons of new and better things.
Actually, I think it is rather impressive that 7.10 (which has eye candy on by default) has slightly less power consumption than 7.04 (no eye candy by default).
In other words, they increased features while decreasing (generally) power consumption. While it seems to be only about 1 or 2 watts lower (excepting battery idle where it is slightly higher), we are only talking 3-5 watts difference over 2.5 years of updates. In fact, it went down 4 watts using ac idle compared to 5.04, which I am sure had far fewer daemons/features.
Some of this may be better code etc. However, I think we should be giving the people who have been doing the coding here major Kudos for doing getting the most out of our computers (whereas MS wants us to quadruple our ram to use eye candy, they are doing it with the same amount of ram standard 4 years ago on a desktop, and keeping power down). I don't even want to think of what Vista must use in power.
RTFA? What? Am I supposed to do that? I have just been responding to what I misread in the summary. Someone should have told me when I joined, I never would have figured it out on my own... oh the wasted comments I have left.:^)
It will also feature more applications, including an Access-like database creator, a flowcharter, and an image manipulation tool.
I know I am setting myself up for something here, but isn't BASE an access-like database creator?
I just hope that they don't feel the need to go with K based names. Such as KIM (K image manipulator), Kase (K database), Ksql (Ksicle, kind of like popsicle), etc.
On the other hand, if it has new features, I'm all for it. I, and many others I'm sure, just want something that JUST WORKS. I don't care if it KDE, GTK, so on and so forth. I will go where the features and stability is. And that is the only way to spread FOSS - by getting a true alternative to the other programs that infect corporate culture (and from there, to schools so they can prep for corporate culture, then to homes). If it takes multiple projects to stir each other along, then fine. But if one can do just as well for ease of selection, fine too. Just lose the egos and do what is best for everyone - not just your baby project.
I for one do not consider your post as a troll, as you try to use factual and well thought out arguments (I use the word try not to say you didn't succeed, but because you didn't have time to do proper research, which I didn't either, but which you attempt to present without having the backup I'm sure you'd normally want). I thought you therefore deserved a response:
B. I wasn't sure if they made money directly or not, I did not have the chance to look up references either. I think in some way they benefit, if not directly. Therefore, I'll flip it. If the RIAA loses this, then the media companies stand to lose more money (paying lawyers fees for defendants, damages to defendants, etc), although they are spending tons on the lawyers already, you could more or less double it if they had to pay for the other side (although I'm sure the RIAA lawyers make more). I was just trying to show that of course they feel it is important - it is their lifeblood.
C. I understand your point. First though, I am surprised. Most people wouldn't admit that the majority is by single person "distributing" to single person. I believe the general belief is that it is one or two "distributing" to thousands, via the net. You mention both, and use the ubiquity of p2p as you main argument, but then let us know that that is not where the majority of the piracy happens. I would be ok with audio tape copies for quality of sound. And I know several that prefer vinyl even. And while it was more time consuming to "rip" back then, I know TONS of people who did it constantly. I TRULY am not sure that it is all that more prevalent, but I believe it IS more widely known (just as I'm sure that there were tons of molesters back in the day, but many were hiding in anonymity, whereas today with info access, we are aware to much more of it. Doesn't necessarily mean it is happening more, although it may be, but we are aware of it more). I wouldn't be surprised to see that it was more prevalent now or then, I just want to see proof instead of conjecture. Give me a study that has been checked a few times and rerun to verify results from an independent party, and I'll tend to agree. But for now, the figures could be as made up as their supposed losses (which range in the thousands per song I believe), and I would rather know for sure than just taking their word on it. I'd be happy to be proven wrong... but I do want proof first.
An emotional plea that has to do with this guys well being in many ways will however affect the jury, and he has a lot riding on the jury agreeing with his point of view. Either way, his testimony would be prejudicial.
So, the JREF Challenge has been upgraded to not jut paranormal psychic claims to ridiculous marketing claims? Well, he hasn't lost his money yet, so he's a pretty good gambler.
I love the concept, I just pray that it will change the marketing practices (Monster cables are HOW MUCH?... there isn't enough loss over 6' for me to not just buy some radio shack [also now overpriced, but not as much] cables instead)
Sadly, like the Music companies, I think ad-makers are set in their ways, and we won't see any change soon. I just hope it wakes people up to how much their ignorance can hurt their wallet.
Gabriel said that Sherman would be able to tell the jury why this case was significant, and more importantly, describe the harm the RIAA believes piracy has caused to the music industry.
A. It is important to them because it may mean the end of them using shotgun tactics (hope to hit someone) to try and curb piracy.
B. It is important to him because they pay what I assume is a substantial salary to him, and he will not look good to the media companies backing him if revenue drops even further because they don't have money coming in from lawsuit settlements
C. They "believe" the piracy has caused harm. I've yet to see credible evidence that is has (at least using realistic numbers, instead of their inflated ones, plus I don't even really know if piracy is any worse than the tape swapping days). I believe that their methods have caused the Consumer and Taxpayers harm. Does that mean I can testify?
The lawyer was exactly right, as was the judge. It was not relevant to the question at hand, it would have been emotional rather than factual, and it would make the case an even bigger circus and soapbox. Plus, I want it to be our soapbox where we expose the RIAA for the slimy weasels they are.
Oh, and I don't like the RIAA, in case I hadn't made it clear yet.
Well, it's a good thing Red vs Blue just ended, or else it would have to end now.
From TFA:
The creation of anything "pornographic or obscene... or otherwise objectionable." The vagueness of this rule upset many creators.
I'm sure some parents would call the language used in RvB "obscene" (and if parents don't, I know a lawyer who will...)
The sale of any works that use Microsoft intellectual property. The company said it's OK to sell ads on sites that host machinima, but that's it.
And that is the death of RvB right there. In fact, I hope it isn't retroactive, or else they can't sell the dvds anymore. And then there will be the giddy microsoft junior lawyer trying for a promotion who gets a part of the t-shirt sales too because it was quotes used in a video using microsoft ip, so it is "fruit of the poisonous tree". (IANAL)
On the other hand, this may not apply to roosterteeth at all, as they were even invited to bungie to try out the new versions before they were released.
Of course they could be making roosterteeth anti-comptetive like they are, by not allowing anyone to do what they did, so they have the monopoly:^) (no I don't think they'd ever do that)
The sad part is that they are only doing this for one reason:
Scrap copper money.
In a world where a company will do anything to keep wall street and its investors happy, they have decided to make money off the scrap copper now that they are going fiber optic.
Actually, they are now looking into scrap fiber optic for the next generation.
1. People constantly post that the summary (or in this case title) is misleading, but don't get labeled flamebait nor get "yelled" at. My comment was made because "I" misread it, and so I therefore might think others may do the same thing. You seem to get overly offended that someone would misread or misunderstand something easily.
2. My wife works across the street from MIT. Really. I know what they call pranks... however, hacks are more commonly thought of as hacking on a computer... and people not in the know would typically assume that.
3. If you are speaking on behalf of the actual slashdot team (which I am not sure if you are), you should know better. The default slashdot settings leave ONLY THE HEADLINE showing for things under the games category. Therefore, it was not as easy to just read the sentence as you seem to imply it was. Most people would only read the headline, and may be disappointed at what it was really about (see above).
4. I have no problem with TFA - in fact I find it rather funny (especially since I drive by there all the time). However, as I mentioned, I would find MIT hacking Harvard (either the college or university section) to be really interesting, in light of the recent RIAA avoiding them.
So, how many people are going to misread this that MIT hacked Harvard College (which is just across Cambridge) to get a copy of the game (which may or may not be legal)?
I am all for creative titles to create interest, and I know the pranks are called hacks, but this one is just a little too misleading.
Now MIT hacking an illegal share at Harvard (which is of course exempt from RIAA lawsuits [and therefore I assume game and MPAA by association], according to recent articles here, so they can get away with it...) in order to get the game early - THAT would be good reading. And maybe be counted as extra credit in a class.
So, it's like the way that most peer to peer lawsuits are filed for people "making available" the "illegal" material, but typically not the downloader for getting the offending items. It's the distribution that is the offense.
So, does this mean I will no longer see the ads for cable (and satellite) descrambler sin the back of my pop sci mags? Or is it scientific research for them that they are providing to other aspiring scientists?
All three are one-stop Exchange replacements for Linux. Our winner, Scalix, isn't the most feature-rich or innovative of the three (Zimbra is), but it has what most businesses expect from a mail and collaboration platform, along with a solid enterprise pedigree.
So, instead of awarding the one that has the most features and innovations, they give the one an award that has what "most people expect" and "a good pedigree"? Now, following full disclosure, I use zimbra community edition for the email server at my small company. However, I fully evaluated Scalix and open-exchange, and found that Zimbra offered far more of what I expect than scalix does (including conversations, shared calendars, etc).
I guess it just amazes me that they admit that one product is better than another in the article, but give the award to someone else. It's just ridiculous.
Many have said that banning weapons will only hurt the people who buy them legally. The people who do things illegally will always find a way to get around it, whether guns, bomb making, etc. (This is only a comment on a viewpoint, I am not advocating it, I am only presenting it, so I hope this doesn't turn into a battle over this.)
If some kid who wants to blow up a school can't find a simple bomb, then he will find another way the wreak havoc. Only the method will be different.
Changing the ability to find something will not change people or their ability for new and more inventive ways to cause destruction.
I read some of the handbooks out of curiosity when I was a kid, as did a number of my friends. None of them blew up anything. There are a number of kids who are white hat hackers, but we only hear about the evil kids, as good kids aren't news.
You can filter all you want, but the end result will be the same - people who want to do something bad enough will most certainly find a way to do it.
See definition #2. I meant it as a thing that few know about or understand, so there may be few people who can properly cite verifiable materials.
And it IS food for the brain...
esoteric (s'-tr'k) Pronunciation Key adj.
1.
1. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
2. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
3. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
4. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
2.
1. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
2. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
You can record for private use, not for distribution. Also, downloaded copies remove the commercials, which is the way that the tv episodes are paid for. In fact, the article on wikipedia for audio ripping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_music_ripping) notes that several companies sued for the removal of the commercials. One less person watching the show means that many fewer advertising dollars from the companies. Tivo does affect this now though also, which nielson is working on.
However, I am not sure if anyone has ever taken into account the fact that someone could miss an episode of a show. If he doesn't download it, he may not watch again for a while. If he does, he may miss the one episodes commercials, but is much more likely to see the ones from the next episodes.
The key thing to remember is that most people who are prosecuted are prosecuted for uploading (distributing), not downloading. That is what takes it out of the fair use arena.
I never said it had to be perfect. However, the majority of systems can be improved upon. We should never settle for "good enough" when we have the ability to enhance something. I'm sure it would work extremely well on very popular articles. I was just bringing up one possible problem, that they can possibly resolve if they are made aware of it.
I agree with you about wikipedia being different than dead tree encyclopedias. There have been a few people online who have pointed out where wikipedia fixes mistakes major encylopedias have made.
Looking at a lot of the comments, a number of people have the same concerns with the algorithm. Many very good things have been abused by people in the past. I like the idea, but I felt it was my responsibility to note a problem that could easily crop up.
So, if there is a myth that a lot of people believe is true, then it will stay up there as it is not challenged. So, it still gets reputation, and therefore more credibility, making it more likely that the myth will be perpetrated.
Also, if someone hasn't noticed something that is wrong on an esoteric entry, it will also be given credibility, and once again be more likely to be considered to be fact.
While you could add voting to the algorithm to have people vote on whether it is true, that still gets destroyed by someone who just votes because they think it's true, not because they have verified it.
Either way, it potentially gives additional credibility to something that may be very wrong.
Chicago: I want you to build a wireless network in our city. We want to access and use the network for free for government usage. We will also take all credit for the initiative.
Companies: Ok, the cost will be...
Chicago: Cost? No, we want this for free. And we want discounted rates for customers here, so they will want to use it instead of dsl or cable. But, we will give you a $.01 credit for every megawatt hour...
Typical government, trying to make a company pay for services it doesn't want to have to pay for for itself, and then wanting the credit. Of course they couldn't reach a deal.
People wonder why we are rapidly dropping in the list for broadband connectivity vs Europe (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/14/19 48226). The simple reason is the size of the US, and the large amount of rural areas. If it takes $7k to make it 3/10 of a mile, then the profitability for the companies is down the toilet (esp. if they have to do it in fiber in the next few years again anyway). Of course they don't want to spend the money to do it. The short term costs are too high for the long term. They focus on the areas with the most people, to maximize profits.
Of course, it would be nice if they would stop focusing on profits for Wall street and their investors, plus paying the CEO, but I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.
In the case of Universal, the watermarking data won't identify each individual file--a method that would allow the company to trace pirated files back to their first purchaser. Instead, it will only identify the particular song. Eventually, Universal will look at popular file-trading networks, and see which of the DRM-free songs released through its experimental program ended up on these networks. Universal can then use this data to help decide whether the risk of piracy outweighs the increased sales from DRM-free MP3 files, segmenting this decision by particular markets. For example, it might find that new Top 40 singles are more likely to find their way onto file-trading networks than classic rock from the 1970s.
So they are either:
A. Funding technology and a study to tell them what the entire world already knows (wait, I thought only governments did that!)
B. Trying out the technology, but when it gets circumvented, they can easily say "oh, it was just for a study, it wasn't production", giving them a PR way out of looking like complete fools again.
or C. Trying out the technology, and if it doesn't get circumvented easily, they can just keep the study rolling permanently. then, they can pat themselves on the back and talk about how good their tech is, or they can just run the "study" permanently, while slowly adding in more identifiers so the people who share can be tracked too.
No matter which way you look at it, I don't like it. I could easily find out an approximate number of seeders for a top 40 song in a 10 minute search. Compare that to the number of seeders for another song, and you get a decent idea of how they compare. They know this already... so I think there may be more to this, and we are right to be skeptical.
If I buy a cd, I can resell it, and that is legal (if not, then the RIAA should be going after all the cd stores). What if I sell the music that is watermarked? Or are they making that illegal now based on their terms of use?
This is the same problem that came up with Apple adding the user info to the files.
I love how the digital world has actually been effectively taking our rights away as they narrow the terms and conditions of using the things you buy (could only install Vista twice until there was an uproar about it, if you download the music instead of buying a cd, you can't sell it to a friend....).
Slashdot Mirror
A. Doesn't eye candy, etc still consume ram, and therefore power (I may be wrong on this, but it seems a little logical)
B. It does matter under load, and under load it is consuming less power than the preceding version.
C. Bloat and added features should make the computer use more power over time (you can argue that computer should be minimalistic, but more hardware out there, etc, tends to adds more bloat, if only in drivers, etc). It is still impressive that it is as close to a version 2.5 years ago as it is (not to mention that it is better than the previous version).
D. I tend to think there may be more daemons waking up the comp, not a badly written one. More features = more daemons, therefore more wakeups.
I still say give major credit to linux (as the added item is a common to linux in general, but we are talking ubuntu in specific here) coders for keeping power and requirements down compared to both other major os's and while adding tons of new and better things.
Actually, I think it is rather impressive that 7.10 (which has eye candy on by default) has slightly less power consumption than 7.04 (no eye candy by default).
In other words, they increased features while decreasing (generally) power consumption. While it seems to be only about 1 or 2 watts lower (excepting battery idle where it is slightly higher), we are only talking 3-5 watts difference over 2.5 years of updates. In fact, it went down 4 watts using ac idle compared to 5.04, which I am sure had far fewer daemons/features.
Some of this may be better code etc. However, I think we should be giving the people who have been doing the coding here major Kudos for doing getting the most out of our computers (whereas MS wants us to quadruple our ram to use eye candy, they are doing it with the same amount of ram standard 4 years ago on a desktop, and keeping power down). I don't even want to think of what Vista must use in power.
RTFA? :^)
What?
Am I supposed to do that?
I have just been responding to what I misread in the summary.
Someone should have told me when I joined, I never would have figured it out on my own... oh the wasted comments I have left.
From TFS:
I know I am setting myself up for something here, but isn't BASE an access-like database creator?
I just hope that they don't feel the need to go with K based names. Such as KIM (K image manipulator), Kase (K database), Ksql (Ksicle, kind of like popsicle), etc.
On the other hand, if it has new features, I'm all for it. I, and many others I'm sure, just want something that JUST WORKS. I don't care if it KDE, GTK, so on and so forth. I will go where the features and stability is. And that is the only way to spread FOSS - by getting a true alternative to the other programs that infect corporate culture (and from there, to schools so they can prep for corporate culture, then to homes). If it takes multiple projects to stir each other along, then fine. But if one can do just as well for ease of selection, fine too. Just lose the egos and do what is best for everyone - not just your baby project.
The only problem is that they keep missing...
I for one do not consider your post as a troll, as you try to use factual and well thought out arguments (I use the word try not to say you didn't succeed, but because you didn't have time to do proper research, which I didn't either, but which you attempt to present without having the backup I'm sure you'd normally want). I thought you therefore deserved a response:
B. I wasn't sure if they made money directly or not, I did not have the chance to look up references either. I think in some way they benefit, if not directly. Therefore, I'll flip it. If the RIAA loses this, then the media companies stand to lose more money (paying lawyers fees for defendants, damages to defendants, etc), although they are spending tons on the lawyers already, you could more or less double it if they had to pay for the other side (although I'm sure the RIAA lawyers make more). I was just trying to show that of course they feel it is important - it is their lifeblood.
C. I understand your point. First though, I am surprised. Most people wouldn't admit that the majority is by single person "distributing" to single person. I believe the general belief is that it is one or two "distributing" to thousands, via the net. You mention both, and use the ubiquity of p2p as you main argument, but then let us know that that is not where the majority of the piracy happens.
I would be ok with audio tape copies for quality of sound. And I know several that prefer vinyl even. And while it was more time consuming to "rip" back then, I know TONS of people who did it constantly. I TRULY am not sure that it is all that more prevalent, but I believe it IS more widely known (just as I'm sure that there were tons of molesters back in the day, but many were hiding in anonymity, whereas today with info access, we are aware to much more of it. Doesn't necessarily mean it is happening more, although it may be, but we are aware of it more). I wouldn't be surprised to see that it was more prevalent now or then, I just want to see proof instead of conjecture. Give me a study that has been checked a few times and rerun to verify results from an independent party, and I'll tend to agree. But for now, the figures could be as made up as their supposed losses (which range in the thousands per song I believe), and I would rather know for sure than just taking their word on it. I'd be happy to be proven wrong... but I do want proof first.
An emotional plea that has to do with this guys well being in many ways will however affect the jury, and he has a lot riding on the jury agreeing with his point of view. Either way, his testimony would be prejudicial.
Hope that cleared things up.
So, the JREF Challenge has been upgraded to not jut paranormal psychic claims to ridiculous marketing claims? Well, he hasn't lost his money yet, so he's a pretty good gambler.
I love the concept, I just pray that it will change the marketing practices (Monster cables are HOW MUCH?... there isn't enough loss over 6' for me to not just buy some radio shack [also now overpriced, but not as much] cables instead)
Sadly, like the Music companies, I think ad-makers are set in their ways, and we won't see any change soon. I just hope it wakes people up to how much their ignorance can hurt their wallet.
A. It is important to them because it may mean the end of them using shotgun tactics (hope to hit someone) to try and curb piracy.
B. It is important to him because they pay what I assume is a substantial salary to him, and he will not look good to the media companies backing him if revenue drops even further because they don't have money coming in from lawsuit settlements
C. They "believe" the piracy has caused harm. I've yet to see credible evidence that is has (at least using realistic numbers, instead of their inflated ones, plus I don't even really know if piracy is any worse than the tape swapping days). I believe that their methods have caused the Consumer and Taxpayers harm. Does that mean I can testify?
The lawyer was exactly right, as was the judge. It was not relevant to the question at hand, it would have been emotional rather than factual, and it would make the case an even bigger circus and soapbox. Plus, I want it to be our soapbox where we expose the RIAA for the slimy weasels they are.
Oh, and I don't like the RIAA, in case I hadn't made it clear yet.
Well, it's a good thing Red vs Blue just ended, or else it would have to end now.
From TFA:
I'm sure some parents would call the language used in RvB "obscene" (and if parents don't, I know a lawyer who will...)
And that is the death of RvB right there. In fact, I hope it isn't retroactive, or else they can't sell the dvds anymore. And then there will be the giddy microsoft junior lawyer trying for a promotion who gets a part of the t-shirt sales too because it was quotes used in a video using microsoft ip, so it is "fruit of the poisonous tree". (IANAL)
On the other hand, this may not apply to roosterteeth at all, as they were even invited to bungie to try out the new versions before they were released.
Of course they could be making roosterteeth anti-comptetive like they are, by not allowing anyone to do what they did, so they have the monopoly :^) (no I don't think they'd ever do that)
The sad part is that they are only doing this for one reason:
Scrap copper money.
In a world where a company will do anything to keep wall street and its investors happy, they have decided to make money off the scrap copper now that they are going fiber optic.
Actually, they are now looking into scrap fiber optic for the next generation.
On behalf of myself:
1. People constantly post that the summary (or in this case title) is misleading, but don't get labeled flamebait nor get "yelled" at. My comment was made because "I" misread it, and so I therefore might think others may do the same thing. You seem to get overly offended that someone would misread or misunderstand something easily.
2. My wife works across the street from MIT. Really. I know what they call pranks... however, hacks are more commonly thought of as hacking on a computer... and people not in the know would typically assume that.
3. If you are speaking on behalf of the actual slashdot team (which I am not sure if you are), you should know better. The default slashdot settings leave ONLY THE HEADLINE showing for things under the games category. Therefore, it was not as easy to just read the sentence as you seem to imply it was. Most people would only read the headline, and may be disappointed at what it was really about (see above).
4. I have no problem with TFA - in fact I find it rather funny (especially since I drive by there all the time). However, as I mentioned, I would find MIT hacking Harvard (either the college or university section) to be really interesting, in light of the recent RIAA avoiding them.
So, how many people are going to misread this that MIT hacked Harvard College (which is just across Cambridge) to get a copy of the game (which may or may not be legal)?
I am all for creative titles to create interest, and I know the pranks are called hacks, but this one is just a little too misleading.
Now MIT hacking an illegal share at Harvard (which is of course exempt from RIAA lawsuits [and therefore I assume game and MPAA by association], according to recent articles here, so they can get away with it...) in order to get the game early - THAT would be good reading. And maybe be counted as extra credit in a class.
So, it's like the way that most peer to peer lawsuits are filed for people "making available" the "illegal" material, but typically not the downloader for getting the offending items. It's the distribution that is the offense.
So, does this mean I will no longer see the ads for cable (and satellite) descrambler sin the back of my pop sci mags? Or is it scientific research for them that they are providing to other aspiring scientists?
From TFA:
So, instead of awarding the one that has the most features and innovations, they give the one an award that has what "most people expect" and "a good pedigree"? Now, following full disclosure, I use zimbra community edition for the email server at my small company. However, I fully evaluated Scalix and open-exchange, and found that Zimbra offered far more of what I expect than scalix does (including conversations, shared calendars, etc).
I guess it just amazes me that they admit that one product is better than another in the article, but give the award to someone else. It's just ridiculous.
Many have said that banning weapons will only hurt the people who buy them legally. The people who do things illegally will always find a way to get around it, whether guns, bomb making, etc. (This is only a comment on a viewpoint, I am not advocating it, I am only presenting it, so I hope this doesn't turn into a battle over this.)
If some kid who wants to blow up a school can't find a simple bomb, then he will find another way the wreak havoc. Only the method will be different.
Changing the ability to find something will not change people or their ability for new and more inventive ways to cause destruction.
I read some of the handbooks out of curiosity when I was a kid, as did a number of my friends. None of them blew up anything. There are a number of kids who are white hat hackers, but we only hear about the evil kids, as good kids aren't news.
You can filter all you want, but the end result will be the same - people who want to do something bad enough will most certainly find a way to do it.
Great, I miss one episode of family guy and a joke goes right over my head.
Dang it. Now I lost all my geek cred.
Are you saying that esoteric is a food term?
See definition #2. I meant it as a thing that few know about or understand, so there may be few people who can properly cite verifiable materials.
And it IS food for the brain...
esoteric (s'-tr'k) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1.
1. Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious.
2. Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people.
3. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
4. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
2.
1. Confined to a small group: esoteric interests.
2. Not publicly disclosed; confidential.
You can record for private use, not for distribution. Also, downloaded copies remove the commercials, which is the way that the tv episodes are paid for. In fact, the article on wikipedia for audio ripping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_music_ripping) notes that several companies sued for the removal of the commercials. One less person watching the show means that many fewer advertising dollars from the companies. Tivo does affect this now though also, which nielson is working on.
However, I am not sure if anyone has ever taken into account the fact that someone could miss an episode of a show. If he doesn't download it, he may not watch again for a while. If he does, he may miss the one episodes commercials, but is much more likely to see the ones from the next episodes.
The key thing to remember is that most people who are prosecuted are prosecuted for uploading (distributing), not downloading. That is what takes it out of the fair use arena.
I never said it had to be perfect. However, the majority of systems can be improved upon. We should never settle for "good enough" when we have the ability to enhance something. I'm sure it would work extremely well on very popular articles. I was just bringing up one possible problem, that they can possibly resolve if they are made aware of it.
I agree with you about wikipedia being different than dead tree encyclopedias. There have been a few people online who have pointed out where wikipedia fixes mistakes major encylopedias have made.
Looking at a lot of the comments, a number of people have the same concerns with the algorithm. Many very good things have been abused by people in the past. I like the idea, but I felt it was my responsibility to note a problem that could easily crop up.
So, if there is a myth that a lot of people believe is true, then it will stay up there as it is not challenged. So, it still gets reputation, and therefore more credibility, making it more likely that the myth will be perpetrated.
Also, if someone hasn't noticed something that is wrong on an esoteric entry, it will also be given credibility, and once again be more likely to be considered to be fact.
While you could add voting to the algorithm to have people vote on whether it is true, that still gets destroyed by someone who just votes because they think it's true, not because they have verified it.
Either way, it potentially gives additional credibility to something that may be very wrong.
So, I guess that ends the days of my dad calling the time every Saturday, and anxiously counting to make sure his watch was exactly right.
Then, when someone would ask him the time, he would say the time, followed by "exactly".
Well, maybe I'll just have to give him a watch that syncs wirelessly with ntp for Christmas this year.
So let me see if I understand this:
Chicago: I want you to build a wireless network in our city. We want to access and use the network for free for government usage. We will also take all credit for the initiative.
Companies: Ok, the cost will be...
Chicago: Cost? No, we want this for free. And we want discounted rates for customers here, so they will want to use it instead of dsl or cable. But, we will give you a $.01 credit for every megawatt hour...
Typical government, trying to make a company pay for services it doesn't want to have to pay for for itself, and then wanting the credit. Of course they couldn't reach a deal.
People wonder why we are rapidly dropping in the list for broadband connectivity vs Europe (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/14/19 48226). The simple reason is the size of the US, and the large amount of rural areas. If it takes $7k to make it 3/10 of a mile, then the profitability for the companies is down the toilet (esp. if they have to do it in fiber in the next few years again anyway). Of course they don't want to spend the money to do it. The short term costs are too high for the long term. They focus on the areas with the most people, to maximize profits.
Of course, it would be nice if they would stop focusing on profits for Wall street and their investors, plus paying the CEO, but I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.
From the article:
So they are either:
A. Funding technology and a study to tell them what the entire world already knows (wait, I thought only governments did that!)
B. Trying out the technology, but when it gets circumvented, they can easily say "oh, it was just for a study, it wasn't production", giving them a PR way out of looking like complete fools again.
or C. Trying out the technology, and if it doesn't get circumvented easily, they can just keep the study rolling permanently. then, they can pat themselves on the back and talk about how good their tech is, or they can just run the "study" permanently, while slowly adding in more identifiers so the people who share can be tracked too.
No matter which way you look at it, I don't like it. I could easily find out an approximate number of seeders for a top 40 song in a 10 minute search. Compare that to the number of seeders for another song, and you get a decent idea of how they compare. They know this already... so I think there may be more to this, and we are right to be skeptical.
If I buy a cd, I can resell it, and that is legal (if not, then the RIAA should be going after all the cd stores). What if I sell the music that is watermarked? Or are they making that illegal now based on their terms of use?
This is the same problem that came up with Apple adding the user info to the files.
I love how the digital world has actually been effectively taking our rights away as they narrow the terms and conditions of using the things you buy (could only install Vista twice until there was an uproar about it, if you download the music instead of buying a cd, you can't sell it to a friend....).