No, stupid. The product came out in 2002, I bought one in 2003, Steve Jobs did his "we hate flash players" dance in 2004, and then the shuttle came out in 2005.
God you are dense...
You are picking your years, treating them all the same--whichever works best for you.
You're bragging about a product that's been out since 2002. Well, in 2002, there was just the original 5GB iPod. There's no way Apple could have made a successful iPod shuffle then.
In 2003 you bought your 128mb, 2-CD holdin' mp3 player. From Apple's point of view, that player's utter crap. I agree with them. I've owned 3 flash mp3 players, all prior to the iPod, and the memory limitation sucked, but I lived with it. Once the iPod came out, there was no way I'd limit myself to 1 CD per $100 flash card again. The 512MB shuffle is only usable because of iTunes and the shuffle mix feature. You really need a really cheap 512mb flash (minimum) and an iTunes jukebox to make the shuffle a success. It wasn't until 2004 that this became feasible, and wonder-of-wonders, Apple created the product in.... 2004!
In January of 2004 Jobs ripped on the crappy flash players, only focusing on the high-end--your player was high-end for that era. He's right that that's crap. The iPod mini, which only became feasible then, tore them up.
Now Apple comes out with the iPod shuffle, which you claim they could have and should have released in 2002 (when your player originally came out) or you will call them cloners. And you became livid when Jobs called your crap player 'crap'.
I'm trying to get you to understand that the iPod shuffle couldn't have been made in 2002, or 2003, and even early 2004 would have seen it at too high a price. You need to check in with reality every once in a while to calibrate your expectations, or you'll be spending a lot of time being livid.
Well, the parabolic issue is just math, so that's no problem.
As for the issue of wind--you could use the cell phone's internet connection to check the weather.
And if you miss? Have the camera snap a photo so you can see where the bullet hit, and compensate for the next shot.
This could be a movie...
The trailer:
[fade in, city street scene, zoom in on businessman's cell phone, it reads 'accessing weather net...']
Raspy Voice Guy: "In a high tech world gone mad, your cell phone can kill you..."
[fast fade out with gunshot sound]
RVG: "From 200 yards away."
[abrupt music 'attack', then fast and disconcerting drums, lot's of quick shots of a normal city street life interspersed with people looking up from their phones to some distant skyscraper window]
RVG: "This summer, in theaters everywhere, your phone bluetooths you."
All that's missing is the ability to reshuffle the songs you randomly selected once you get to the end of your Autofilled playlist...
And iTunes, and style, and 4x the RAM, and the size, and...
The one I bought had 128MB, back when that was a lot of flash for the price. It was about 50% thicker than the shuffle, and a little longer and wider. And it cost me $69.00, not $99 or $199.
Well, shit. If you get to pick whichever year you want... You're livid last year, you bought your mp3 player two years ago, and you had your idea--the part I was directly replying to, in the part above, 3 years ago.
I quote, "(after all, this was 3 years ago)," which puts it at early '02, just a few months after the release of the original iPod.
And where are you getting this "your idea" business from?
"I was livid"
"I immediately went to Apple's site and sent in a suggestion"
"I had even figured out the way to use iTunes"
But all this info was in the message you're responding to. Did you actually read the whole thing? Or was that too much work.
I read your entire message before replying. I'm starting to have my doubts that you did, though.
Your contention that the iPod shuffle is basically just a generic flash player, only 3 years late shows you don't even know what an iPod is.
This isn't 'IP' like software patents, or DMCA copyright schemes, it's 'IP' as in 'identity'.
No one would cry 'foul' at this product, if it were functionally exactly like it is now, but didn't look just like an iPod shuffle, and wasn't packaged with Apple type adverts (dancing black silhouettes with white 'pods over a green background).
I agree that fighting competition with 'IP" instead of innovation is evil, but this thing isn't 'competition', it's impersonation.
Please point out the product that the iPod shuffle is a clone of.
No one is getting mad that someone made a product that's like the shuffle, this thing is physically identical. Take a shuffle, erase the Apple logo, the capacity on the USB sheath, and, well that's about the difference. They even have the same silhouette dancing people.
This isn't a 'clone' in that it 'works pretty much the same, with pretty much the same features', it's a clone like that Louis Vuitton bag you can get at the swap-meet for $25.
When Steve Jobs got on stage in 2004 and poo-poohed flash music players, concentrating on the high end, I was livid.
Because the low-end mp3 players suck. I've seen 'em up close, and witnessed the hassles friends have had with them.
Apart from the "reshuffle" ability, and the memory size
Two of the four things which make the shuffle not-suck. The other two are iTunes and the industrial design.
(after all, this was 3 years ago)
And three years your idea was shit. You idea wasn't the iPod shuffle, it was the iPod 32mb, with the 1 hour battery life (I guess if you only have four songs...), at thrice the physical size, all for the low-low price of $199.
I'll bet you had the idea for Sony's tiny cell phones and bluetooth headsets back in '95, too!
It's possible to be a lot like something, and still be 'unique'.
Quoting a dictionary will not help you with your vocabulary, you'll also need to put some thought into it.
The game is a lot like WarioWare, presumably in that it's a mix of many game styles, but it's not going to be exactly like WarioWare, allowing it the potential to be 'unique'.
My contention is still that "keeping a secret" can still be a condition to be met in a contract, and if the condition is not met, that's breaking a contract.
And it's reasonable for both parties to a contract or agreement to expect that the contract or agreement be fulfilled. Otherwise, why do we bother with contracts and agreements?
I agree with this. That doesn't change the fact that Apple would be retarded to not expect leaks.
It's two different issues. One is that Apple can't think, "leaks? Hah! That's impossible, why they signed a contract. There's no possible way this information could be leaked." The other is that once there is a leak, Apple is right to try to track down the leaker and enforce their contract.
In my post, I made both points, plus one more--that I don't believe Apple should be able to force TS or AI or anyone else not contractually obliged to them, to help them track down the leak. If AI or TS wants to help, fine, but they should also be able to decline.
I have a question for you: Do you believe Apple has the right to force an innocent third party to help them enforce their contracts?
One can be a party to a crime, but a party to a contract violation? How can you be a 'party' to a contract violation for a contract you are not a 'party' to? It just seems utterly stupid ('absurd' would be your term of choice, I think).
You don't wanna get sued for posting trade secrets.
I don't think there's much to worry about on this one. The defense attorney will just have to giggle uncontrollably every time the prosecutor makes his case against, "Silly Burrito".
Prosecution: "Your honor, we plan to show that one 'Silly Burrito' poste--"
Defense: <giggling>
Prosecution: "Your honor! This an outrage, please do something!"
Judge: "The defense will restrain from laughing."
Defense: "Your honor, he's prosecuting a burrito, a *silly* burrito. I can't help it."
Judge: "You've got a point. Disregard my last order. Prosecution, you may continue."
Prosecution: "Shit..."
Later...
Jury Foreman: "Your honor, the jury finds the Burrito, 'not spicy'!" and bursts out in unrestrained laugher
All that I stated was that once you start telling people a secret, it becomes less and less secure a secret--that's not absurd, that's reality.
How do you propose that secrets be kept, if not by agreement?
Let's consult my post, maybe the answer is already there:
"... not because I think there should be no repercussions for those who violate confidentiality agreements, but because I don't think Apple has the right to force..."
Yup, there it is. I clearly state that I agree (or literally, I stated that I don't disagree, which can be assumed to be the same in this context) with Apple's right to use and enforce contracts.
Are you advocating a "Code of Silence" in which leakers of secrets are murdered?
Obviously not.
Oh, and you're also a bit confused. The ruling wasn't about the Think Secret case. It might be a good idea if you limited your comments to things you actually know shit about.
Yeah, oops, I thought it was about the TS case, that doesn't change the mechanics involved.
This, of course, completely ignores the basic ideas of property, including intellectual property, and good-faith agreements to not reveal your employer's secrets, not to mention fundamental ideas of ethics, and further ignores the idea that free speech is not, and never has been, absolute, in that it has ramifications.
You're rolling a whole lot under one umbrella there. Physical property is different from so-called intellectual property, is different from ethics and deception.
Apple is trying to create a false reality--a reality in which secrets are kept merely by agreement. That's not realistic on any large scale. Equating 'secrets' with 'physical property' doesn't change reality.
I disagree with forcing TS to reveal their sources in this case, not because I think there should be no repercussions for those who violate confidentiality agreements, but because I don't think Apple has the right to force (via the courts) TS to do their work for them. Apple has leaks, and needs to find and fix them themselves. It should be up to TS whether to help Apple or not.
We're not talking about info critical to solving a major crime, we're not talking about private personal data, we're not even talking about critical strategic data, we're talking about a contract violation, a contract of confidentiality on some hardware audio input that Apple was planning to release shortly anyway--and a contract that TS is not even a party to. This is about Apple not getting to control the hype they want. Too bad. Apple doesn't have a right to get the hype they want, only the right to try. You don't always get what you want, and it's unfair of Apple to use force in this case.
Did Bush call up O'Keefe and tell him to scrub the shuttle mission for Hubble? Nope.
Did Bush call up O'Keefe and tell him to send the shuttle to service Hubble? He could have.
As it stands, O'Keefe's decision makes no sense.
Now Voyager is facing cancellation from a desk jockey inside NASA and you think the president had something to do with this, how?
Because the President outlined a plan for NASA which states Mars is the goal.
New Shuttle -> Moon -> Mars (and something about meeting our 'current commitments to ISS'). Everything else begs for scraps. Voyager exists under the rubric of "everything else".
Bush probably didn't order the Hubble or Voyager scrapped, but he did redefine NASA's mission in a way that made doing these things far less likely than they would have been in the past.
With Bush in power, science suffers. If this isn't clear to you by now, you really haven't been paying attention.
A politician's desire is to gain power. Their job is to serve their constituency. I was arguing based on the latter. That is the rose coloured glasses view of politicians. (compare with a CEO whose desire is to be rich and powerful, but whose job is to serve the shareholders)
And the way you portray "serving their constituency" is quite cynical. The ideal view would be that it means (on the subject of science) being completely dedicated to the objective truth, and supporting science regardless of gain or loss to private enterprise, etc. The cynical view is that this means that they will just use science as a tool to gain more political support, even if that means (for example) supporting "UFO" conventions and calling it science.
Reality, I'm certain, is somewhere in between. It's possible to encourage idealism over cynicism, and vice versa.
So all resources in the US (or wherever you are) are now controled by the government? Was there a coup I missed?
Obviously, the resources, support, and cohesion is above and beyond what is already available. In other words, if you want the additional benefits the government can provide, you have to accept the politicians as well, as they are part of the package. As I've stated throughout this thread, you can design these projects in such a way as they will minimize the bad effects of political influence.
So the question becomes, what does the whole package bring? You seem to be arguing that it can only bring a net loss. That's so obviously untrue, that you state it at the end of your post (more on that below).
I don't see that bringing the politicians directly in into the selection will improve things, just teh reverse.
Except I've made it clear that politicians won't be the ones making those decisions. They will appoint candidates, etc, but it will be the board who makes the suggestions. Of course that raises problems, but the problems are all ameliorable.
As an example of what that level of availability is, 1 year's access to all the journals found useful enough to be having on hand by the accademics in all subjects at Edinburgh university (plus all the books and archives etc of course) costs 100 quid IIRC. That's equivalent to the subscription to just one magazine. I think that counts as reasonably easily available.
This whole debate is predicated on the notion that the availability isn't as good as it could (and should) be. For example, how many copies of a specific periodical are available for 100 pounds? Are they accessible online? And of course, is this in the US? (if it works fine in the UK, then obviously you lot don't need the programs, but if it doesn't work here, it's certainly arguable that we need them).
If you want to propose that 100 pound grants for external membership of private libraries be made available by the state, say via the education department, then I would have no complaint to make.
Potentially, that's all my Dept. of Science has to do. I've stated elsewhere I'd have it advise the President (he could clearly use some advice in the realm of science), and it could seek out programs (like providing cash subsidies to libraries to grant wider access to material). You still have the potential for abuse--for example the Dept. could demand that the money only go to libraries which also carry creationist periodicals, and other strings, but such abuses are not insurmountable. Open up the organization to criticism, and structure it so that it's insulated as well as can be from the President's (whether liberal or conservative--science is science, if a particular ideology disputes science, it's the ideology that needs to change, not the other way around!) personal politics. Doing this will minimize the bad aspects while maintaining the good.
It boils down to looking at the current state of science in the nation and asking, "is there anything the government can do to reasonably make things better?" The answer is, of course, "y
I think you need institutional safeguards to insulate the scientists from the politicians.
Agreed, and I make it clear that I would include them in my hypothetical Dept. of Science.
I'm not thinking of a NASA-like agency which actually engages in science, but more of an advisory board which the President can go to to ask, "should I invest in nuclear rockets? Is it a good idea? How about hydrogen cars?" and he can rely on them for thoughtful and scientific guidance. It would also have NSF like programs to promote science, but that might be a bit too redundant. They could also issue reports on the state of science in the nation--like how well do the various networks promote science, what's the government's official scientific opinion on global warming, what's the expected science discipline for which it would be good to increase college enrollment in, those sorts of things.
The point is that the problem of a no-cost science journal is something the government can help with (even if it's just subsidies), and that it would be a benefit to the nation to have a cabinet level position to advise the President. It would certainly be an improvement over the way things are now!
Zip is probably the most commonly installed archiver across all systems.
tar/tar.gz/tar.bz is supported out-of-the-box on Linux and Mac OS X, but can throw Windows users for a loop (easily remedied, but they aren't likely to have untar installed, and will find the file extension at least a bit odd). For some data tar.bz will result in noticeably smaller files, but at a greater cost of compression/decompression time.
After that, you're not really going to find an archival format that's really common.
In the end, it depends on what type of data you are archiving, and your target audience, but unless you have a specific reason otherwise, zip with an md5 checksum file is probably the solution of least effort (just make sure you back-up the archive--don't want to have a problem with the only copy you have!).
If CherryOS is sued for this, won't this test the GPL furthermore? It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)
Isn't that a little like having someone brand you in order to answer once and for all whether branding scars you?
Certainly, some good would come out of such a case, and maybe you're just looking at the silver lining, but the cloud of having to go through such a lawsuit to begin with is still there.
No I didn't. [state that the politician's job is to gain political power]
You said: "It's not about the current president. Any politician must act that way, it is their job to maximise their political support". Please demonstrate how that's critically different in a way which relates to the discussion at hand?
So, bring in resources, support and cohesion without politicians.
Too bad, the politicians are part of the package. Either you get the resources, support, cohesion, and the politicians, or you get nothing.
No, I believe it is, and should be, incapable of promoting politically unacceptabale aspects of science.
What do you mean by "politically unacceptable"? Taking the most immediate possible meaning, which is that it's the current powerholders who would find the thing "politically unacceptable", you are obviously wrong. Government is so obviously capable of promoting science the powerholders disagree with, that your claim boggles the mind. Right now, at this very moment, the government is saying that global warming is a real and immediate threat. That is science which is considered "politically unacceptable".
That is, in effect, what happens now. if I wanted access to a specialised journal, I'd go to one of the local Universities' libraries and if enough scientists (for a science journal) thought it was a useful journal it would be there on the shelves, or available for loan from a cooperating institution.
But the whole point is that the journal isn't readily available currently, otherwise this whole discussion would be irrelevant.
Obviously someone thinks that the journal isn't as freely available as they'd like. One possible (and logical) solution is to have the government help out. Your claim is that it's impossible for the government to help out. That's patently absurd.
Gore was also widely known to be unhappy with government funded scientific research that contradicted or challenged his environmental beliefs. Other politicians have their own blind spots.
So? He was also unhappy about losing the election, and he could have ended up in the situation were he was the one to cast the deciding vote in Congress to throw out or certify his own election results, but he didn't. He specifically asked the Senate *not* to put him in that position. "Conflict of interest" is an old term, from about four years ago, that politicians used to take seriously. Now instead of being seen as a bad thing, it's considered good, and has been renamed "political capital".
The point isn't that science won't be used as a political tool--it is now, even without a Department of Science. The point is that a Department of Science can be a beneficial department, and political abuses can be mitigated.
OK, so imagine Gore won (just guessing that this will make a good "worst case scenario" from your point of view), and he instituted a Department of Science like I outline, and it concludes that global warming is really not so bad, but Gore wants to promote a hydrogen economy anyway. At least with my system, there's, on record, the fact that the Department of Science has found the President's choice to be contradictory to science, which is more than you get now without such a department.
Yes, it would still be possible to populate the department with ideologically sympathetic scientists (but if you make the process of choosing department personnel open and bring in oversight, you can make it very difficult to "stack the deck"), but even if you do manage to compromise the integrity of the department, public opinion of the department will then become weakened. People will say, "the Dept. of Science said that? Well, then it must be the other way, because, as everyone knows, they are just shills for the administration."
It's an established means of comparing military spending among countries. What percentage of the country's "wealth" does it spend on the military? It's like asking what percentage of the family budget is spent on housing.
No, it's like asking what percentage of the family budget junior spends from his allowance on baseball cards.
I'm not saying that at all. My point in responding to you was to address the misconception, which has been raised around here before, that because Novak appears to be getting away with it means that all journalists enjoy some blanket immunity against prosecution for keeping sources confidential. They don't.
Yeah, and I've explicitly stated that journalists don't enjoy blanket immunity in these cases. Quit making the mistake that that's what I'm claiming.
The "courts" don't have anything to do with it, yet. It's the special prosecutor who's decided who to question and what to do about the level of co-operation of witnesses. Patrick Fitzgerald might not feel comfortable forcing Robert Novak to do something, but that's neither here nor there.
So in other words, the court is not forcing the asshole Novak to reveal his sources, but this has nothing to do with the notion that courts should think twice about forcing journalist's to compromise their sources?
Listen closely: there is a notion, and it exists in the courts, that you shouldn't undertake to force a journalist to reveal their sources lightly. It's as simple as that.
All you have for rebuttal is that there's no blanket immunity (which I never said there was), and that you don't know why the asshole Novak isn't in jail. Your case is not sound.
My case is that there is simply a notion. I've consistently used that word throughout this thread because it's not a firm foundation, it's a notion. It's not a law, it's a notion. In other words, a journalist can't say, "you can't make me talk, I'm a journalist!" and be let off the hook, but the judge can demand (or even just strongly suggest) the prosecutor make other efforts first.
No I wasn't. If you are not going to read what I wrote, why reply? Assuming that people will do their jobs properly is not cynicism, quite the reverse.
If you define "doing their jobs properly" in a cynical manner, what's the difference? You stated that the politician's job is to gain political power. That's a cynical view of politics. Please look up the word before further comment on it.
There is no potential benefit in bringing politicians into an area where politics is a problem not an advantage.
You would only be right if the only thing that is being brought in is politics. It's not. Such a system would also bring resources, support, and cohesion. These are not problems.
You want to set up a government body and keep it out of the government.
No, I don't. I want to set up a government body, but limit it with regards to the ways in which it can cause harm, while empowering it with regards to the ways in which it can bring benefit.
It's not so black-and-white as you make it out to be.
Do you actually believe government is incapable of promoting science? At an absurd minimum, the government could run a 30 second ad which just says, "Science is good," and have it shown at random on random channels at random intervals.
So what's wrong with polling scientists to ask them which journals are most influential then subsidizing public access to the journals? That's what we're specifically talking about here.
Yes, you were. Merriam-Webster provides free access to their dictionary online. Why not use it?
I din't say their job was to look good.
Which was not what I meant with your out-of-context quote. I was showing how politicians have deliberately and knowingly made decisions which were harmful to their political careers, which directly contradicts your assertion that politicians must only make politically beneficial choices.
Indeed, you can keep politicians out of areas where politics is a problem not an advantage, such as control of what gets published.
Thus giving up any potential benefit of the program, which is about the most retarded possible way to approach life.
Are you so absolutely foolish as to think that a "Department of Science", which is mandated to promoting science, and is free from direct influence by the administration (by law--you know you could actually make it a crime to doctor science at the behest of the administration, and you could create an oversight committee which has full access to records and personnel, etc) is going to do more harm than good? Show some imagination and give the problem some thought.
Slashdot Mirror
No, stupid. The product came out in 2002, I bought one in 2003, Steve Jobs did his "we hate flash players" dance in 2004, and then the shuttle came out in 2005.
God you are dense...
You are picking your years, treating them all the same--whichever works best for you.
You're bragging about a product that's been out since 2002. Well, in 2002, there was just the original 5GB iPod. There's no way Apple could have made a successful iPod shuffle then.
In 2003 you bought your 128mb, 2-CD holdin' mp3 player. From Apple's point of view, that player's utter crap. I agree with them. I've owned 3 flash mp3 players, all prior to the iPod, and the memory limitation sucked, but I lived with it. Once the iPod came out, there was no way I'd limit myself to 1 CD per $100 flash card again. The 512MB shuffle is only usable because of iTunes and the shuffle mix feature. You really need a really cheap 512mb flash (minimum) and an iTunes jukebox to make the shuffle a success. It wasn't until 2004 that this became feasible, and wonder-of-wonders, Apple created the product in.... 2004!
In January of 2004 Jobs ripped on the crappy flash players, only focusing on the high-end--your player was high-end for that era. He's right that that's crap. The iPod mini, which only became feasible then, tore them up.
Now Apple comes out with the iPod shuffle, which you claim they could have and should have released in 2002 (when your player originally came out) or you will call them cloners. And you became livid when Jobs called your crap player 'crap'.
I'm trying to get you to understand that the iPod shuffle couldn't have been made in 2002, or 2003, and even early 2004 would have seen it at too high a price. You need to check in with reality every once in a while to calibrate your expectations, or you'll be spending a lot of time being livid.
Well, the parabolic issue is just math, so that's no problem.
As for the issue of wind--you could use the cell phone's internet connection to check the weather.
And if you miss? Have the camera snap a photo so you can see where the bullet hit, and compensate for the next shot.
This could be a movie...
The trailer:
[fade in, city street scene, zoom in on businessman's cell phone, it reads 'accessing weather net...']
Raspy Voice Guy: "In a high tech world gone mad, your cell phone can kill you..."
[fast fade out with gunshot sound]
RVG: "From 200 yards away."
[abrupt music 'attack', then fast and disconcerting drums, lot's of quick shots of a normal city street life interspersed with people looking up from their phones to some distant skyscraper window]
RVG: "This summer, in theaters everywhere, your phone bluetooths you."
All that's missing is the ability to reshuffle the songs you randomly selected once you get to the end of your Autofilled playlist...
And iTunes, and style, and 4x the RAM, and the size, and...
The one I bought had 128MB, back when that was a lot of flash for the price. It was about 50% thicker than the shuffle, and a little longer and wider. And it cost me $69.00, not $99 or $199.
Well, shit. If you get to pick whichever year you want... You're livid last year, you bought your mp3 player two years ago, and you had your idea--the part I was directly replying to, in the part above, 3 years ago.
I quote, "(after all, this was 3 years ago)," which puts it at early '02, just a few months after the release of the original iPod.
And where are you getting this "your idea" business from?
"I was livid"
"I immediately went to Apple's site and sent in a suggestion"
"I had even figured out the way to use iTunes"
But all this info was in the message you're responding to. Did you actually read the whole thing? Or was that too much work.
I read your entire message before replying. I'm starting to have my doubts that you did, though.
Your contention that the iPod shuffle is basically just a generic flash player, only 3 years late shows you don't even know what an iPod is.
This isn't 'IP' like software patents, or DMCA copyright schemes, it's 'IP' as in 'identity'.
No one would cry 'foul' at this product, if it were functionally exactly like it is now, but didn't look just like an iPod shuffle, and wasn't packaged with Apple type adverts (dancing black silhouettes with white 'pods over a green background).
I agree that fighting competition with 'IP" instead of innovation is evil, but this thing isn't 'competition', it's impersonation.
Please point out the product that the iPod shuffle is a clone of.
No one is getting mad that someone made a product that's like the shuffle, this thing is physically identical. Take a shuffle, erase the Apple logo, the capacity on the USB sheath, and, well that's about the difference. They even have the same silhouette dancing people.
This isn't a 'clone' in that it 'works pretty much the same, with pretty much the same features', it's a clone like that Louis Vuitton bag you can get at the swap-meet for $25.
When Steve Jobs got on stage in 2004 and poo-poohed flash music players, concentrating on the high end, I was livid.
Because the low-end mp3 players suck. I've seen 'em up close, and witnessed the hassles friends have had with them.
Apart from the "reshuffle" ability, and the memory size
Two of the four things which make the shuffle not-suck. The other two are iTunes and the industrial design.
(after all, this was 3 years ago)
And three years your idea was shit. You idea wasn't the iPod shuffle, it was the iPod 32mb, with the 1 hour battery life (I guess if you only have four songs...), at thrice the physical size, all for the low-low price of $199.
I'll bet you had the idea for Sony's tiny cell phones and bluetooth headsets back in '95, too!
It's possible to be a lot like something, and still be 'unique'.
Quoting a dictionary will not help you with your vocabulary, you'll also need to put some thought into it.
The game is a lot like WarioWare, presumably in that it's a mix of many game styles, but it's not going to be exactly like WarioWare, allowing it the potential to be 'unique'.
My contention is still that "keeping a secret" can still be a condition to be met in a contract, and if the condition is not met, that's breaking a contract.
And it's reasonable for both parties to a contract or agreement to expect that the contract or agreement be fulfilled. Otherwise, why do we bother with contracts and agreements?
I agree with this. That doesn't change the fact that Apple would be retarded to not expect leaks.
It's two different issues. One is that Apple can't think, "leaks? Hah! That's impossible, why they signed a contract. There's no possible way this information could be leaked." The other is that once there is a leak, Apple is right to try to track down the leaker and enforce their contract.
In my post, I made both points, plus one more--that I don't believe Apple should be able to force TS or AI or anyone else not contractually obliged to them, to help them track down the leak. If AI or TS wants to help, fine, but they should also be able to decline.
I have a question for you: Do you believe Apple has the right to force an innocent third party to help them enforce their contracts?
One can be a party to a crime, but a party to a contract violation? How can you be a 'party' to a contract violation for a contract you are not a 'party' to? It just seems utterly stupid ('absurd' would be your term of choice, I think).
I don't think there's much to worry about on this one. The defense attorney will just have to giggle uncontrollably every time the prosecutor makes his case against, "Silly Burrito".Later...
Even better. They're including an all new graphing calculator. It's called Graphulator
All that I stated was that once you start telling people a secret, it becomes less and less secure a secret--that's not absurd, that's reality.
How do you propose that secrets be kept, if not by agreement?
Let's consult my post, maybe the answer is already there:
Yup, there it is. I clearly state that I agree (or literally, I stated that I don't disagree, which can be assumed to be the same in this context) with Apple's right to use and enforce contracts.
Are you advocating a "Code of Silence" in which leakers of secrets are murdered?
Obviously not.
Oh, and you're also a bit confused. The ruling wasn't about the Think Secret case. It might be a good idea if you limited your comments to things you actually know shit about.
Yeah, oops, I thought it was about the TS case, that doesn't change the mechanics involved.
OK, that was flamebait. Sorry. =)
No problem.
Oh, and your mom's a crack ho.
Hmm, that wasn't nice. No hard feelings, 'k
This, of course, completely ignores the basic ideas of property, including intellectual property, and good-faith agreements to not reveal your employer's secrets, not to mention fundamental ideas of ethics, and further ignores the idea that free speech is not, and never has been, absolute, in that it has ramifications.
You're rolling a whole lot under one umbrella there. Physical property is different from so-called intellectual property, is different from ethics and deception.
Apple is trying to create a false reality--a reality in which secrets are kept merely by agreement. That's not realistic on any large scale. Equating 'secrets' with 'physical property' doesn't change reality.
I disagree with forcing TS to reveal their sources in this case, not because I think there should be no repercussions for those who violate confidentiality agreements, but because I don't think Apple has the right to force (via the courts) TS to do their work for them. Apple has leaks, and needs to find and fix them themselves. It should be up to TS whether to help Apple or not.
We're not talking about info critical to solving a major crime, we're not talking about private personal data, we're not even talking about critical strategic data, we're talking about a contract violation, a contract of confidentiality on some hardware audio input that Apple was planning to release shortly anyway--and a contract that TS is not even a party to. This is about Apple not getting to control the hype they want. Too bad. Apple doesn't have a right to get the hype they want, only the right to try. You don't always get what you want, and it's unfair of Apple to use force in this case.
Did Bush call up O'Keefe and tell him to scrub the shuttle mission for Hubble? Nope.
Did Bush call up O'Keefe and tell him to send the shuttle to service Hubble? He could have.
As it stands, O'Keefe's decision makes no sense.
Now Voyager is facing cancellation from a desk jockey inside NASA and you think the president had something to do with this, how?
Because the President outlined a plan for NASA which states Mars is the goal.
New Shuttle -> Moon -> Mars (and something about meeting our 'current commitments to ISS'). Everything else begs for scraps. Voyager exists under the rubric of "everything else".
Bush probably didn't order the Hubble or Voyager scrapped, but he did redefine NASA's mission in a way that made doing these things far less likely than they would have been in the past.
With Bush in power, science suffers. If this isn't clear to you by now, you really haven't been paying attention.
Ogg? That's fine if you are into being part of the 'mainstream' crowd.
.iso music files. Some of the best techno I've ever heard!
A few years ago I discovered
A politician's desire is to gain power. Their job is to serve their constituency. I was arguing based on the latter. That is the rose coloured glasses view of politicians. (compare with a CEO whose desire is to be rich and powerful, but whose job is to serve the shareholders)
And the way you portray "serving their constituency" is quite cynical. The ideal view would be that it means (on the subject of science) being completely dedicated to the objective truth, and supporting science regardless of gain or loss to private enterprise, etc. The cynical view is that this means that they will just use science as a tool to gain more political support, even if that means (for example) supporting "UFO" conventions and calling it science.
Reality, I'm certain, is somewhere in between. It's possible to encourage idealism over cynicism, and vice versa.
So all resources in the US (or wherever you are) are now controled by the government? Was there a coup I missed?
Obviously, the resources, support, and cohesion is above and beyond what is already available. In other words, if you want the additional benefits the government can provide, you have to accept the politicians as well, as they are part of the package. As I've stated throughout this thread, you can design these projects in such a way as they will minimize the bad effects of political influence.
So the question becomes, what does the whole package bring? You seem to be arguing that it can only bring a net loss. That's so obviously untrue, that you state it at the end of your post (more on that below).
I don't see that bringing the politicians directly in into the selection will improve things, just teh reverse.
Except I've made it clear that politicians won't be the ones making those decisions. They will appoint candidates, etc, but it will be the board who makes the suggestions. Of course that raises problems, but the problems are all ameliorable.
As an example of what that level of availability is, 1 year's access to all the journals found useful enough to be having on hand by the accademics in all subjects at Edinburgh university (plus all the books and archives etc of course) costs 100 quid IIRC. That's equivalent to the subscription to just one magazine. I think that counts as reasonably easily available.
This whole debate is predicated on the notion that the availability isn't as good as it could (and should) be. For example, how many copies of a specific periodical are available for 100 pounds? Are they accessible online? And of course, is this in the US? (if it works fine in the UK, then obviously you lot don't need the programs, but if it doesn't work here, it's certainly arguable that we need them).
If you want to propose that 100 pound grants for external membership of private libraries be made available by the state, say via the education department, then I would have no complaint to make.
Potentially, that's all my Dept. of Science has to do. I've stated elsewhere I'd have it advise the President (he could clearly use some advice in the realm of science), and it could seek out programs (like providing cash subsidies to libraries to grant wider access to material). You still have the potential for abuse--for example the Dept. could demand that the money only go to libraries which also carry creationist periodicals, and other strings, but such abuses are not insurmountable. Open up the organization to criticism, and structure it so that it's insulated as well as can be from the President's (whether liberal or conservative--science is science, if a particular ideology disputes science, it's the ideology that needs to change, not the other way around!) personal politics. Doing this will minimize the bad aspects while maintaining the good.
It boils down to looking at the current state of science in the nation and asking, "is there anything the government can do to reasonably make things better?" The answer is, of course, "y
I think you need institutional safeguards to insulate the scientists from the politicians.
Agreed, and I make it clear that I would include them in my hypothetical Dept. of Science.
I'm not thinking of a NASA-like agency which actually engages in science, but more of an advisory board which the President can go to to ask, "should I invest in nuclear rockets? Is it a good idea? How about hydrogen cars?" and he can rely on them for thoughtful and scientific guidance. It would also have NSF like programs to promote science, but that might be a bit too redundant. They could also issue reports on the state of science in the nation--like how well do the various networks promote science, what's the government's official scientific opinion on global warming, what's the expected science discipline for which it would be good to increase college enrollment in, those sorts of things.
The point is that the problem of a no-cost science journal is something the government can help with (even if it's just subsidies), and that it would be a benefit to the nation to have a cabinet level position to advise the President. It would certainly be an improvement over the way things are now!
Zip is probably the most commonly installed archiver across all systems.
tar/tar.gz/tar.bz is supported out-of-the-box on Linux and Mac OS X, but can throw Windows users for a loop (easily remedied, but they aren't likely to have untar installed, and will find the file extension at least a bit odd). For some data tar.bz will result in noticeably smaller files, but at a greater cost of compression/decompression time.
After that, you're not really going to find an archival format that's really common.
In the end, it depends on what type of data you are archiving, and your target audience, but unless you have a specific reason otherwise, zip with an md5 checksum file is probably the solution of least effort (just make sure you back-up the archive--don't want to have a problem with the only copy you have!).
If CherryOS is sued for this, won't this test the GPL furthermore? It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)
Isn't that a little like having someone brand you in order to answer once and for all whether branding scars you?
Certainly, some good would come out of such a case, and maybe you're just looking at the silver lining, but the cloud of having to go through such a lawsuit to begin with is still there.
Is the GPL even enforceable? Nothing's being exchanged, so you can't really consider the licence agreement as contractually binding in any sense.
What do you mean, "nothing's being exchanged"? You are getting the right to use/modify/etc, the software in exchange for agreeing to the terms.
No I didn't. [state that the politician's job is to gain political power]
You said: "It's not about the current president. Any politician must act that way, it is their job to maximise their political support". Please demonstrate how that's critically different in a way which relates to the discussion at hand?
So, bring in resources, support and cohesion without politicians.
Too bad, the politicians are part of the package. Either you get the resources, support, cohesion, and the politicians, or you get nothing.
No, I believe it is, and should be, incapable of promoting politically unacceptabale aspects of science.
What do you mean by "politically unacceptable"? Taking the most immediate possible meaning, which is that it's the current powerholders who would find the thing "politically unacceptable", you are obviously wrong. Government is so obviously capable of promoting science the powerholders disagree with, that your claim boggles the mind. Right now, at this very moment, the government is saying that global warming is a real and immediate threat. That is science which is considered "politically unacceptable".
That is, in effect, what happens now. if I wanted access to a specialised journal, I'd go to one of the local Universities' libraries and if enough scientists (for a science journal) thought it was a useful journal it would be there on the shelves, or available for loan from a cooperating institution.
But the whole point is that the journal isn't readily available currently, otherwise this whole discussion would be irrelevant.
Obviously someone thinks that the journal isn't as freely available as they'd like. One possible (and logical) solution is to have the government help out. Your claim is that it's impossible for the government to help out. That's patently absurd.
Gore was also widely known to be unhappy with government funded scientific research that contradicted or challenged his environmental beliefs. Other politicians have their own blind spots.
So? He was also unhappy about losing the election, and he could have ended up in the situation were he was the one to cast the deciding vote in Congress to throw out or certify his own election results, but he didn't. He specifically asked the Senate *not* to put him in that position. "Conflict of interest" is an old term, from about four years ago, that politicians used to take seriously. Now instead of being seen as a bad thing, it's considered good, and has been renamed "political capital".
The point isn't that science won't be used as a political tool--it is now, even without a Department of Science. The point is that a Department of Science can be a beneficial department, and political abuses can be mitigated.
OK, so imagine Gore won (just guessing that this will make a good "worst case scenario" from your point of view), and he instituted a Department of Science like I outline, and it concludes that global warming is really not so bad, but Gore wants to promote a hydrogen economy anyway. At least with my system, there's, on record, the fact that the Department of Science has found the President's choice to be contradictory to science, which is more than you get now without such a department.
Yes, it would still be possible to populate the department with ideologically sympathetic scientists (but if you make the process of choosing department personnel open and bring in oversight, you can make it very difficult to "stack the deck"), but even if you do manage to compromise the integrity of the department, public opinion of the department will then become weakened. People will say, "the Dept. of Science said that? Well, then it must be the other way, because, as everyone knows, they are just shills for the administration."
It's an established means of comparing military spending among countries. What percentage of the country's "wealth" does it spend on the military? It's like asking what percentage of the family budget is spent on housing.
No, it's like asking what percentage of the family budget junior spends from his allowance on baseball cards.
I'm not saying that at all. My point in responding to you was to address the misconception, which has been raised around here before, that because Novak appears to be getting away with it means that all journalists enjoy some blanket immunity against prosecution for keeping sources confidential. They don't.
Yeah, and I've explicitly stated that journalists don't enjoy blanket immunity in these cases. Quit making the mistake that that's what I'm claiming.
The "courts" don't have anything to do with it, yet. It's the special prosecutor who's decided who to question and what to do about the level of co-operation of witnesses. Patrick Fitzgerald might not feel comfortable forcing Robert Novak to do something, but that's neither here nor there.
So in other words, the court is not forcing the asshole Novak to reveal his sources, but this has nothing to do with the notion that courts should think twice about forcing journalist's to compromise their sources?
Listen closely: there is a notion, and it exists in the courts, that you shouldn't undertake to force a journalist to reveal their sources lightly. It's as simple as that.
All you have for rebuttal is that there's no blanket immunity (which I never said there was), and that you don't know why the asshole Novak isn't in jail. Your case is not sound.
My case is that there is simply a notion. I've consistently used that word throughout this thread because it's not a firm foundation, it's a notion. It's not a law, it's a notion. In other words, a journalist can't say, "you can't make me talk, I'm a journalist!" and be let off the hook, but the judge can demand (or even just strongly suggest) the prosecutor make other efforts first.
Sure sounds like a notion to me!
No I wasn't. If you are not going to read what I wrote, why reply? Assuming that people will do their jobs properly is not cynicism, quite the reverse.
If you define "doing their jobs properly" in a cynical manner, what's the difference? You stated that the politician's job is to gain political power. That's a cynical view of politics. Please look up the word before further comment on it.
There is no potential benefit in bringing politicians into an area where politics is a problem not an advantage.
You would only be right if the only thing that is being brought in is politics. It's not. Such a system would also bring resources, support, and cohesion. These are not problems.
You want to set up a government body and keep it out of the government.
No, I don't. I want to set up a government body, but limit it with regards to the ways in which it can cause harm, while empowering it with regards to the ways in which it can bring benefit.
It's not so black-and-white as you make it out to be.
Do you actually believe government is incapable of promoting science? At an absurd minimum, the government could run a 30 second ad which just says, "Science is good," and have it shown at random on random channels at random intervals.
So what's wrong with polling scientists to ask them which journals are most influential then subsidizing public access to the journals? That's what we're specifically talking about here.
I wasn't being cynical.
Yes, you were. Merriam-Webster provides free access to their dictionary online. Why not use it?
I din't say their job was to look good.
Which was not what I meant with your out-of-context quote. I was showing how politicians have deliberately and knowingly made decisions which were harmful to their political careers, which directly contradicts your assertion that politicians must only make politically beneficial choices.
Indeed, you can keep politicians out of areas where politics is a problem not an advantage, such as control of what gets published.
Thus giving up any potential benefit of the program, which is about the most retarded possible way to approach life.
Are you so absolutely foolish as to think that a "Department of Science", which is mandated to promoting science, and is free from direct influence by the administration (by law--you know you could actually make it a crime to doctor science at the behest of the administration, and you could create an oversight committee which has full access to records and personnel, etc) is going to do more harm than good? Show some imagination and give the problem some thought.