It's even less regular than this. You're right that XFree86+another term is not blocked.
But then it seems that many simple modifications of blocked words, even combinations of individually blocked words, are not, themselves, blocked, despite the obviously adult nature of the top hits.
I'm guessing that the entire search field, not just individual terms, is what is checked by the filter. There's probably a case where an unblocked word + a blocked word are actually blocked, but I've been unable to find a specific case showing that.
Well, it's almost 11:30pm Tuesday (EST) now, so I'd say in about two hours the price of these rumored "other" four rings is going to skyrocket. Did they include that in the study?:)
Isn't that the point of UI and HCI research? The underlying theme is always, "we've got the technology, and it has some cool advantages, but we need to figure out how to make it useful to people"...
SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts..." inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension. We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work
...which seems to roughly translate as, "we ran out of ideas, and now we're running out of money, so we decided to sue people until we think of some other way to make money.", with the subtext being, "using the full power of the DMCA, the way God and our forefathers intended copyright to be! It's the only way science can work!"
Similarly,
We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy.
hinges on one's interpretation of "our". I prefer to believe that it says, "using GPLed software has a long-term detriment to SCO's economy.", to which the appropriate response is "Duh!".
When I read the article, AOLiza was the first thing I remembered, and yes, it seems deliciously ironic that this bot -- which is EXACTLY the sort of thing the patent intends to cover -- debuted one week before the patent filing.
This report was published over a year ago, examining vulnerabilities that have been well-understood for >6 years. How is this news?
It might be useful if it was up to date, however as it stands most of the OSes listed there have had non-trivial revisions and new releases since then: WinXP isn't mentioned; Linux testing is limited to some version of 2.2, with no mention of 2.4; it refers to OpenBSD 2.9 coming out "soon" (3.1 is now available); OS X has had many major improvements since its first release; etc.
I agree with you, and have argued the same many times before, however there's a flaw in your proposed plan:
There would have to be <i>some</i> encryption/technical measures in place to ensure that the "creator" metadata of a file is not tampered with, such as a cryptographically strong form of watermarking. Without that, it would be trivial to change the "creator" fields on all my shared files to me, and start making money as those tampered files spread in an exponential fashion.
Also, there's a societal burden: people absolutely hate paying hidden fees and for things without some sort of exchange or confirmation.
Agreed. Salon seems to have a unique ability to make sensationalist news stories by getting pissed off at the obvious, and thinking it was some conspiracy that "no one else" has noticed.
"The Kettle Is Actually Black: Racial Discrimination in the Kitchen?" by Pot.
If you actually checked, you'd find that while that's mostly true, the #4 result returned is Operation Clambake (Bearing the description: "The fight against Scientology on the Net"), which is probably the biggest and most comprehensive anti-scientology site around.
Perhaps Google should revive the old "More evil than satan himself" search term, this time linking Scientology instead of Microsoft.:) (If you search for it now, you don't get Microsoft: what you get is a bunch of news stories about Google's prank the first time)
And as for the star trek replicator paragraph, if something like that were to come out it would have a huge impact on society, and probably result in a major change in property laws, including these copyright and patent ideas. After all, without scarcity, modern economics is pretty much lost.
See, there's these things called computers, and that's exactly what they do for information. Whereas the replication of information used to be limited by the rate at which which could produce "containers" for that information, computers and the Internet they form have enabled us to reproduce any piece of information in existence with the push of a button or two. And they have had a huge impact on society. The problem is, they haven't (yet) resulted in a major change to "intellectual property" laws.
Oh, sure, you can point to things like the DMCA, but those don't actually represent a major change: rather, these new laws are simply the existing laws pushed to a ridiculous extreme, trying to mask the real issue but instead pointing out the folly of the original laws on which they're based.
Two hundred years ago, (smart) people knew that "Intellectual" property wasn't actually property, but book publishers and inventors were whining so they cautiously enacted some legal protections for they works. There's lots of good quotes, and writing, from that time indicating that various statesmen knew that this was a slippery, snow-covered slope down which they were beginning to roll a snowball... Two hundred years later, that snowball is now city-sized and rolling around trying to crush people, apparently ignorant that it's no longer winter and the temperature is a balmy 80 degrees.
Active Copyright infringers -- your "pirates" -- feel justified because morality has changed with times and the laws need to catch up. Anything that helps bring this issue to a point is once step closer to a proper resolution, which would be a new economic model to reward/reimburse creative individuals for their efforts.
And please, don't fall into the blind belief that without big guarantees of making money nothing would get done. I'd much rather use/experience something that was made by someone who enjoyed making it that by someone who did it because he thought there was money to be made.
That explains a lot... although I do like the strategy the book took:
Aragorn: I want to marry your daughter
Elrond: then you have to prove yourself worthy of being King
Aragorn: Ok
...after which he spends 50-odd years running all over Middle Earth, training, learning, and running errands for Gandalf, Elrond, and other Rangers. His concern was being worthy of Arwen -- if that was true, then he was worthy of being King.
Schroedinger's Cat needs a better box, that's all
on
Quantum Holography
·
· Score: 1
No, we're looking at both. The inside of the sphere is a big optic sensor that records the time each photon hits it, which is compared to the time its mate hits the normal detector.
With regard to Schroedinger's Cat, this is really no different than x-raying the box: its effectively the same as opening the box.
That's exactly the thoughts/feelings I had when I first used KDE 2.1 last January... it just works right and feels good. "Smooth" is definitely a good work to describe it.
Ooh, I'm starting to feel guilty about that time I tried to come up with the longest (time-wise) search possible on Google.
What I found most effective at slowing it down was forcing it to actually the common words it normally filters out of your search string (using +, i.e., +this +is +a +him +that), then forcing it to also reject pages that contained a bunch of other common words (using -, i.e. -it -not -am -have).
With about ten each of "+"ed words and "-"ed words, I was able to conduct a search that took 26 seconds. I'm guessing I owe more than a penny for that one:-)
At least they have "industrial" in front of their names: nowadays, the meaning of piracy has very little to do with one-eyed captains, their parrots, and battle on the high seas.
Unless you're willing to extend the definition of a meme to the extreme, they're hardly capable of even Darwinian ambition.
The fundmental definition of a meme attributes information Darwinian ambition: The idea of a "meme" is that information spreads in viral fashion, with humans as hosts. The rate of spread of a meme is the rate at which humans share a that information which others who will, in turn, spread it further... this corresponds to the rate of spread and infection with a virus.
If a meme does not spread, it "dies" as people forget it; it's a Darwinian failure. In contrast, memes that spread quickly or are remembered longer (think of urban legends, or religions) can be viewed, respectively, as spawning more successful children or living longer: Darwinian successes.
Information doesn't want to be anything. Information just is, which makes it an asset, which makes it vulnerable to the economic laws of supply and demand.
Information isn't an asset; the nature of information is fundamentally different from that of an asset. If I give you my information, I don't have any less of it -- the cost to replicate the information is (effectively, given the low cost of media) zero. The only limit to my supply is whatever artificial limitation I place on my willingness to communicate it. As soon as I give you a piece of information, you have an infinite supply of it which you, in turn, could choose to distribute to others. Thus, the spread of information is an exponential growth. As soon as the information reaches someone willing to communicate it freely, the information becomes free to anyone in contact with that person. That is, the "cost" to gain specific information is the cheapest price offered by anyone who has it, NOT the price specified by the originator of that information. And most people, other than that originator, don't feel they are losing any value when they spread it for free.
It is this nature -- which differs so sharply from conventional ideas of assets and property -- that contributed to the anthropomorphism (which is a successful meme, isn't it?:-) )
In contrast, the services for deriving/creating new information DO have an actual, economic costs and value, and are subject to economic pressures. Hopefully, in the future, economic models with address this directly rather than depending on laws to confuse the issue by artificially binding the value of creating information to the information itself. [Insert plug for things like the Street Performer's Protocol].
They ignore the fact that library books cost ten cents per day late, that a reliable Internet connection costs fifteen dollars a month, and that university tuition costs four thousand dollars a year.
Ironically, in each of these cases the information is available for free (library books if you drop them off on time; your ISP doesn't supply the data to begin with; anything facts taught in universities could be found freely by loitering in their libraries). The fees you pay correspond to the cost of providing the service used to convey the information.
Slashdot Mirror
There's probably a case where an unblocked word + a blocked word are actually blocked, but I've been unable to find a specific case showing that.
After reading through some other comments, I found one:
"xxx" is not blocked (likely because of the movie), while
"xx" is blocked
Meanwhile,
"xxx porn" is blocked, yet
"xx porn" is not.
This filter makes no sense.
It's even less regular than this. You're right that XFree86+another term is not blocked.
But then it seems that many simple modifications of blocked words, even combinations of individually blocked words, are not, themselves, blocked, despite the obviously adult nature of the top hits.
For instance:
"porn" is blocked
"voyeur" is blocked
"sex" is blocked
"voyeur sex" is blocked
But "voyeur porn" is not blocked
I'm guessing that the entire search field, not just individual terms, is what is checked by the filter. There's probably a case where an unblocked word + a blocked word are actually blocked, but I've been unable to find a specific case showing that.
1. If I ever shop lift, I'll be sure to get a roll of tinfoil while I at it.
2. If I ever decide to microwave American money, I won't microwave $1000 all at once.
I'm not sure whether this is a joke or a troll... but the real joke is whoever took it seriously and modded it insightful.
Isn't that the point of UI and HCI research? The underlying theme is always, "we've got the technology, and it has some cool advantages, but we need to figure out how to make it useful to people"...
One can only hope that camwhores everywhere might follow Jenni in this new trend.
Similarly,
hinges on one's interpretation of "our". I prefer to believe that it says, "using GPLed software has a long-term detriment to SCO's economy.", to which the appropriate response is "Duh!".
I have no hands, you insensitive clod!
It took me fourty-five minutes to type this!
When I read the article, AOLiza was the first thing I remembered, and yes, it seems deliciously ironic that this bot -- which is EXACTLY the sort of thing the patent intends to cover -- debuted one week before the patent filing.
Not yet. The recommendation will be announced later today.
"U.S. v. 99 bottles of beer, and a wall"
"The bottles are accused of providing alcohol to minors, while the wall haboured these fugitives and acted as an accessory to the crime"
This report was published over a year ago, examining vulnerabilities that have been well-understood for >6 years. How is this news?
It might be useful if it was up to date, however as it stands most of the OSes listed there have had non-trivial revisions and new releases since then: WinXP isn't mentioned; Linux testing is limited to some version of 2.2, with no mention of 2.4; it refers to OpenBSD 2.9 coming out "soon" (3.1 is now available); OS X has had many major improvements since its first release; etc.
I agree with you, and have argued the same many times before, however there's a flaw in your proposed plan:
There would have to be <i>some</i> encryption/technical measures in place to ensure that the "creator" metadata of a file is not tampered with, such as a cryptographically strong form of watermarking. Without that, it would be trivial to change the "creator" fields on all my shared files to me, and start making money as those tampered files spread in an exponential fashion.
Also, there's a societal burden: people absolutely hate paying hidden fees and for things without some sort of exchange or confirmation.
Agreed. Salon seems to have a unique ability to make sensationalist news stories by getting pissed off at the obvious, and thinking it was some conspiracy that "no one else" has noticed.
"The Kettle Is Actually Black: Racial Discrimination in the Kitchen?" by Pot.
I've never owned a Mac, but reading the Wired article just made me think that the iPod and OS X that much cooler because of all this.
If you actually checked, you'd find that while that's mostly true, the #4 result returned is Operation Clambake (Bearing the description: "The fight against Scientology on the Net"), which is probably the biggest and most comprehensive anti-scientology site around.
Perhaps Google should revive the old "More evil than satan himself" search term, this time linking Scientology instead of Microsoft. :) (If you search for it now, you don't get Microsoft: what you get is a bunch of news stories about Google's prank the first time)
See, there's these things called computers, and that's exactly what they do for information. Whereas the replication of information used to be limited by the rate at which which could produce "containers" for that information, computers and the Internet they form have enabled us to reproduce any piece of information in existence with the push of a button or two. And they have had a huge impact on society. The problem is, they haven't (yet) resulted in a major change to "intellectual property" laws.
Oh, sure, you can point to things like the DMCA, but those don't actually represent a major change: rather, these new laws are simply the existing laws pushed to a ridiculous extreme, trying to mask the real issue but instead pointing out the folly of the original laws on which they're based.
Two hundred years ago, (smart) people knew that "Intellectual" property wasn't actually property, but book publishers and inventors were whining so they cautiously enacted some legal protections for they works. There's lots of good quotes, and writing, from that time indicating that various statesmen knew that this was a slippery, snow-covered slope down which they were beginning to roll a snowball... Two hundred years later, that snowball is now city-sized and rolling around trying to crush people, apparently ignorant that it's no longer winter and the temperature is a balmy 80 degrees.
Active Copyright infringers -- your "pirates" -- feel justified because morality has changed with times and the laws need to catch up. Anything that helps bring this issue to a point is once step closer to a proper resolution, which would be a new economic model to reward/reimburse creative individuals for their efforts.
And please, don't fall into the blind belief that without big guarantees of making money nothing would get done. I'd much rather use/experience something that was made by someone who enjoyed making it that by someone who did it because he thought there was money to be made.
That explains a lot... although I do like the strategy the book took:
Aragorn: I want to marry your daughter
Elrond: then you have to prove yourself worthy of being King
Aragorn: Ok
...after which he spends 50-odd years running all over Middle Earth, training, learning, and running errands for Gandalf, Elrond, and other Rangers. His concern was being worthy of Arwen -- if that was true, then he was worthy of being King.
No, we're looking at both. The inside of the sphere is a big optic sensor that records the time each photon hits it, which is compared to the time its mate hits the normal detector.
With regard to Schroedinger's Cat, this is really no different than x-raying the box: its effectively the same as opening the box.
That's exactly the thoughts/feelings I had when I first used KDE 2.1 last January... it just works right and feels good. "Smooth" is definitely a good work to describe it.
Ooh, I'm starting to feel guilty about that time I tried to come up with the longest (time-wise) search possible on Google.
:-)
What I found most effective at slowing it down was forcing it to actually the common words it normally filters out of your search string (using +, i.e., +this +is +a +him +that), then forcing it to also reject pages that contained a bunch of other common words (using -, i.e. -it -not -am -have).
With about ten each of "+"ed words and "-"ed words, I was able to conduct a search that took 26 seconds. I'm guessing I owe more than a penny for that one
-Wes
At least they have "industrial" in front of their names: nowadays, the meaning of piracy has very little to do with one-eyed captains, their parrots, and battle on the high seas.
The Westacular Wes
The fundmental definition of a meme attributes information Darwinian ambition: The idea of a "meme" is that information spreads in viral fashion, with humans as hosts. The rate of spread of a meme is the rate at which humans share a that information which others who will, in turn, spread it further... this corresponds to the rate of spread and infection with a virus.
If a meme does not spread, it "dies" as people forget it; it's a Darwinian failure. In contrast, memes that spread quickly or are remembered longer (think of urban legends, or religions) can be viewed, respectively, as spawning more successful children or living longer: Darwinian successes.
Information isn't an asset; the nature of information is fundamentally different from that of an asset. If I give you my information, I don't have any less of it -- the cost to replicate the information is (effectively, given the low cost of media) zero. The only limit to my supply is whatever artificial limitation I place on my willingness to communicate it. As soon as I give you a piece of information, you have an infinite supply of it which you, in turn, could choose to distribute to others. Thus, the spread of information is an exponential growth. As soon as the information reaches someone willing to communicate it freely, the information becomes free to anyone in contact with that person. That is, the "cost" to gain specific information is the cheapest price offered by anyone who has it, NOT the price specified by the originator of that information. And most people, other than that originator, don't feel they are losing any value when they spread it for free.
It is this nature -- which differs so sharply from conventional ideas of assets and property -- that contributed to the anthropomorphism (which is a successful meme, isn't it? :-) )
In contrast, the services for deriving/creating new information DO have an actual, economic costs and value, and are subject to economic pressures. Hopefully, in the future, economic models with address this directly rather than depending on laws to confuse the issue by artificially binding the value of creating information to the information itself. [Insert plug for things like the Street Performer's Protocol].
Ironically, in each of these cases the information is available for free (library books if you drop them off on time; your ISP doesn't supply the data to begin with; anything facts taught in universities could be found freely by loitering in their libraries). The fees you pay correspond to the cost of providing the service used to convey the information.
Go read EFF's Intectual Property archive for better-written analyses on the subject; they have a lot of good papers there.