Re-reading the entry myself, i missed something key. EVERY structure has an organizing philote, even non-living matter in that setting. I forgot that aspect from the books.
Basically the more complex the organism, the more powerful of a will that needs to "possess" that system. Living creatures are organized by these "stronger" wills.
really like to see a way that the concept of "soul" could be included in the discussion of free will in a physical world, I just don't know of any scientifically minded philosopher who had done it.
Actually, Orson Scott Card covers a fairly good conjecture on that topic in his sequels to Enders Game (where the writing and character development actually gets much better imo). To boil it down, in his setting humans have discovered that the smallest definable division of matter is known as a Philote which only has a location, duration and connection with adjacent philotes in the form of a infinitely long ray. His setting posits that philotes combine to form matter when their rays are twined together lumping all their rays into a single twine that defines that piece of matter, and when sub-atomic particles combine to form neutrons/electrons/positrons these twines then twine into a larger one, with the rays extending forever twining with each layer of abstraction.
(POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO HAVENT READ THE SERIES)
The soul part comes in when the characters come to believe that living organisms have an independant philote that is not a part of the matter in the organism, but is rather a control of the remaining matter as one system underneath the "soul" philote's will (called an aiua in the books, from Sanskrit I believe). Non-living matter would simply be composed of the philotes combining into the matter itself.
It's a rather interesting way of looking at things I must say, if you read through that wikipedia entry it may provide a new perspective to those debates =)
Actually that example fits perfectly into the GP's example. All that represents is the difference in values in the current "electable" demographics and the average values of the remainder of the set.
. If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you. Revenue from distribution is nil for most artists, if you really want to support them buy merchandise from the whichever-band-it-is's website or attend performances. The promotion angle of the current recording industry has collapsed into itself for the big four, being built around creating the images the advertisers think will sell rather than promotion of talent and advertising the talent. If they truely did shift to a promotion and marketing based business model, they wouldn't be focusing the larger part of their attentions on controlling the distribution channels.
When you control distribution of content and venues, you can tailor a low overhead product to the market rather than finding talent and promoting it. If the ones not being promoted aren't being spun on radio, used in movies/supporting media, or otherwise brought to the publics attention what VALUE have they really given? Having your name on the side of a jewel case crammed in the indie section of your local store doesn't count as advertising or promotion in my book.
As for performances, I can't seem to find any information showing that the recording industry puts effort into providing advertising or promotion for anything but the resulting live albums. I could be wrong though on that one as I'm scrounging between tasks heh.
Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..)
Neither do I!
Heh, dicketry aside, I agree entirely. The buggy whip makers face hard times ahead. The sad thing is they could use this transition as an opportunity to make themselves the absolute gods of promotion and marketing, possibly leading out of only media related advertising. Had they began at least researching how to change their business models so that the original value of prospecting new artists and finding true talent was their focus, i think they would find themselves in much calmer waters.
Hell they could have even done both, in an asshat kind of way. Begin shaping their focus on promotion and marketing while still putting out the lawsuits but then backed down earlier when it was becoming obvious to judges that shinnanegans were afoot saying "oh we thought this was good evidence!".
Hell for all i know, maybe this is exactly what they're doing. Pumping the populace for capital to fund the shift in their focus. It would be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA dissolves. I'll be watching for the big 4 suddenly trying to be the good guys again, with their new awareness campaigns funded by the legal fun of now.
well, i suppose that's why they're so tentative and saying it is not yet linked as causation. What they're most likely referring to is the possibility of humans accidentally cooking food, realizing it was tastier/giving them more energy, and THEN moving on to deliberately invent things.
Seems like a fair shot in the dark, but it's not entirely without basis. Invention isn't always a proactive process, sometimes things just happen and critters decide they prefer it that way.
You just combined a whole set of hairy issues that have nothing to do with the MIT talk. If government contractors design systems at ridiculous cost, thats a separate problem that i wish would be addressed ever. If theres a ton of equipment thats a bitch to patch, thats the original developers problem as they should not have sold it with the flaws in the first place, or at least started working on FIXING it as soon as all this came to light.
If they were willing to have MIT POSTPONE this talk for a reasonable amount of time instead of the aggression they encountered, i would be more sympathetic. From the sounds of their representative in the previous article their intent is to NOT bother fixing anything (IE: not until they make a brand new system).
There's a big difference between saying "we know its broken but refuse to fix it" as opposed to "Give us a chance. You know what its like dealing with government crap, but we'll get to it". Personally i applaud MIT for making the public aware that the paying customers may be subsidizing those who are riding for free on a known flaw. If the cost of the system is proportioned to volume in terms of pricing it will raise prices artificially for those who ARE legit to make up for those who aren't.
This is what they don't want their customers thinking about as its definitely FAR less overhead for them to simply increase the standard fares to make up for the costs of the system until those paying balance it out than to try to fix the system.
Basically, its like people who do friggan nothing at work getting the same wage because you get dumped with all their slackage. One group gets the value, but an entirely different group gets the cost.
In addition, what looked like a black-and-white faxed copy of the entire presentation was entered as evidence in publicly available court records available on the Web on Saturday, meaning any attempt to limit its distribution further will encounter an additional hurdle.
If they're complaining about the vulnerabilities, then it would benefit them to make sure they are removed from the system so that those exploiting it are no longer impacting their bottom line. By leaving the flaws and saying "because no one talks about it, no one knows about it" they have absolutely NO WAY of verifying how many unauthorized passengers their system is carrying and how much revenue they might be missing out on.
The solution is to have a solution, say "well because the court order says they cant tell people, no one will know!" and all you have your head in the sand.
I would agree with you, had the MBTA actually taken the initiative to work on solving these issues. Instead their rep stated that if its not known, its not a problem.
Then they go and release more sensitive details in their court documents which are public record than the original presentation was to discuss.
Had the MBTA stated that "they are currently working on resolving the issues, and would want the talk delayed until they are solved" then you would be exactly correct that the presentation should wait. In the end, this is more about pointing out that the MBTA bureaucracy is being incredibly stupid as well as dangerous in their processes.
If nobody knows where a door is the lock on it doesn't matter.
yes, maybe 99 times out of 100.
And then theres the other 1, like say when an idiot files more vulnerabilities in their court briefs which are public record than the original presentation was going to uncover.
Security through obscurity only works probabilistically, and given a long enough time frame it will always hit the P=1 where someone will have breached it and disseminated the information. This is exactly why security through obscurity is completely retarded when it involves systems intended to operate in any form of long term.
why not change the law such that you have to apply for an extension of copyright? If nothing is filed within, say, 10 years of expiration, then the work goes into the public domain. I'd say 10 years is a long enough time to realize profits on even the most unwanted cartoon character."
The only issue i find with that is although you give a decent time frame of 10 years, it still would add overhead to the maintenance of a copyright. There's already big enough entry fees for being in the "i LEGALLY had an idea!" club.
If anyone is currently able to catalogue and keep track of their copyrights, it's established and valued rights holders. I would see this kind of attempt amounting to nothing to the established rights holders and slightly harming the low end of burgeoning creators.
There has been constant collusion between Bell and Telus for quite some time. Keep in mind that they are in a network sharing agreement when it comes to Wireless service where Telus provides Bell with towers out west in canada, while Bell provides Telus customers the same out east. Both use CDMA based networks that transparently use each others technology, so having them both change at the same time definitely involved some collusion.
Crying anti-trust about telcos in canada does not seem to go very far though, as somehow the GSM companies side of the ledger is supposedly the balance. I'm pretty sure that having both of them change at the same time was actually a part of the strategy, as if one changed and the other did not it would weaken their argument that these charges are "necessary" due to the cost of maintaining the service.
I would love for someone in the court room to ask them 'if they had to double the revenue from pay-per-use sms because of the cost of having sms service, how would they suggest running any CDMA network without SMS even if its not available to the customers as a service?'.
That's the way a rational mind would approach existence. How that relates to "life will find a way" i definitely do not see however. Fictitious chaoticians aren't science.
Keep in mind the number of examples where in following that process, nothing finds a way. The whole point of science is to find out where we're wrong. Science can never say we are 100% right about anything as the whole process is SUPPOSED TO BE about trying to make our assumptions fail.
All we can say is that until a theory fails a test, you cannot say it is impossible. Just like how scientists should never say a God is impossible as we simply do not have the data nor the tests that would mean anything.
Well, i'm not sure where you were going with all of that.
In any field where we cannot be reasonably certain of the tests we're doing let alone the results, it's going to involve a lot of conjecture. The scientists who refuse to say "We just don't know" are on the path to dogmatic thought not scientific thought. I would expect any field on the fringe of our knowledge to involve a lot of uncertainty and a lot of people being shown wrong....constantly. If they weren't being shown to be wrong constantly, that'd be about as likely as coding a huge project on the fly once with no debugging and have it work the first compile.
I don't see how that aspect of human nature has any bearing on the scientific method though.
It is straight from an address of his to the New York City High School Teachers Association from january 9th 1909 (when he was the principal at Princeton). I infuriated my AP US History teacher no end by harping on those points back in the day when we read the speech, but to be fair i cannot remember enough to absolutely be sure of the context nor can i seem to find a copy of it. If you manage to get access to the Princeton copies of the Papers of Woodrow Wilson prior to his innauguration, check the jan 1909 box. That's the best pointer i got at the moment.
I'm going by my memories of the impression i got, and the fact that my teacher at the time had no rebuttals. That's only correlation but whether he was misquoted or not, the system described is what america got. Have you looked in on the quality of education in an average General or even some College prep course loads recently? My experiences are over a decade ago at this point but I never had to do a damned thing until i hit AP courses. It's not like i'm the sharpest of marbles either.
The current system is almost word for word exactly what Woodrow Wilson wanted the education system to become. I wouldn't blame Reagan for more than accelerating the process.
"We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks." -- Woodrow Wilson
There we go...bringing class into it again... it makes life difficult for some when things aren't easily classified as "will be exploited" or "will exploit".
Hell, we're almost at the centennial anniversary of this plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Re-reading the entry myself, i missed something key. EVERY structure has an organizing philote, even non-living matter in that setting. I forgot that aspect from the books.
Basically the more complex the organism, the more powerful of a will that needs to "possess" that system. Living creatures are organized by these "stronger" wills.
really like to see a way that the concept of "soul" could be included in the discussion of free will in a physical world, I just don't know of any scientifically minded philosopher who had done it.
Actually, Orson Scott Card covers a fairly good conjecture on that topic in his sequels to Enders Game (where the writing and character development actually gets much better imo). To boil it down, in his setting humans have discovered that the smallest definable division of matter is known as a Philote which only has a location, duration and connection with adjacent philotes in the form of a infinitely long ray. His setting posits that philotes combine to form matter when their rays are twined together lumping all their rays into a single twine that defines that piece of matter, and when sub-atomic particles combine to form neutrons/electrons/positrons these twines then twine into a larger one, with the rays extending forever twining with each layer of abstraction.
(POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO HAVENT READ THE SERIES)
The soul part comes in when the characters come to believe that living organisms have an independant philote that is not a part of the matter in the organism, but is rather a control of the remaining matter as one system underneath the "soul" philote's will (called an aiua in the books, from Sanskrit I believe). Non-living matter would simply be composed of the philotes combining into the matter itself.
It's a rather interesting way of looking at things I must say, if you read through that wikipedia entry it may provide a new perspective to those debates =)
it IS possible to fall somewhere between 'Pinko Commie' and 'Right-Wing Nutjob'
I dig the spirit of your comment but all i can think of now is: "McBain to base, Under attack by Commi-Nazis".
Actually that example fits perfectly into the GP's example. All that represents is the difference in values in the current "electable" demographics and the average values of the remainder of the set.
. If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you. Revenue from distribution is nil for most artists, if you really want to support them buy merchandise from the whichever-band-it-is's website or attend performances. The promotion angle of the current recording industry has collapsed into itself for the big four, being built around creating the images the advertisers think will sell rather than promotion of talent and advertising the talent. If they truely did shift to a promotion and marketing based business model, they wouldn't be focusing the larger part of their attentions on controlling the distribution channels.
When you control distribution of content and venues, you can tailor a low overhead product to the market rather than finding talent and promoting it. If the ones not being promoted aren't being spun on radio, used in movies/supporting media, or otherwise brought to the publics attention what VALUE have they really given? Having your name on the side of a jewel case crammed in the indie section of your local store doesn't count as advertising or promotion in my book.
As for performances, I can't seem to find any information showing that the recording industry puts effort into providing advertising or promotion for anything but the resulting live albums. I could be wrong though on that one as I'm scrounging between tasks heh.
Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..)
Neither do I!
Heh, dicketry aside, I agree entirely. The buggy whip makers face hard times ahead. The sad thing is they could use this transition as an opportunity to make themselves the absolute gods of promotion and marketing, possibly leading out of only media related advertising. Had they began at least researching how to change their business models so that the original value of prospecting new artists and finding true talent was their focus, i think they would find themselves in much calmer waters.
Hell they could have even done both, in an asshat kind of way. Begin shaping their focus on promotion and marketing while still putting out the lawsuits but then backed down earlier when it was becoming obvious to judges that shinnanegans were afoot saying "oh we thought this was good evidence!".
Hell for all i know, maybe this is exactly what they're doing. Pumping the populace for capital to fund the shift in their focus. It would be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA dissolves. I'll be watching for the big 4 suddenly trying to be the good guys again, with their new awareness campaigns funded by the legal fun of now.
well, i suppose that's why they're so tentative and saying it is not yet linked as causation. What they're most likely referring to is the possibility of humans accidentally cooking food, realizing it was tastier/giving them more energy, and THEN moving on to deliberately invent things.
Seems like a fair shot in the dark, but it's not entirely without basis. Invention isn't always a proactive process, sometimes things just happen and critters decide they prefer it that way.
You just combined a whole set of hairy issues that have nothing to do with the MIT talk. If government contractors design systems at ridiculous cost, thats a separate problem that i wish would be addressed ever. If theres a ton of equipment thats a bitch to patch, thats the original developers problem as they should not have sold it with the flaws in the first place, or at least started working on FIXING it as soon as all this came to light.
If they were willing to have MIT POSTPONE this talk for a reasonable amount of time instead of the aggression they encountered, i would be more sympathetic. From the sounds of their representative in the previous article their intent is to NOT bother fixing anything (IE: not until they make a brand new system).
There's a big difference between saying "we know its broken but refuse to fix it" as opposed to "Give us a chance. You know what its like dealing with government crap, but we'll get to it". Personally i applaud MIT for making the public aware that the paying customers may be subsidizing those who are riding for free on a known flaw. If the cost of the system is proportioned to volume in terms of pricing it will raise prices artificially for those who ARE legit to make up for those who aren't.
This is what they don't want their customers thinking about as its definitely FAR less overhead for them to simply increase the standard fares to make up for the costs of the system until those paying balance it out than to try to fix the system.
Basically, its like people who do friggan nothing at work getting the same wage because you get dumped with all their slackage. One group gets the value, but an entirely different group gets the cost.
In addition, what looked like a black-and-white faxed copy of the entire presentation was entered as evidence in publicly available court records available on the Web on Saturday, meaning any attempt to limit its distribution further will encounter an additional hurdle.
You were saying?
Gah, yes theres a missing "is" in there. Where I leave to you.
preempt! preempt! preempt!
If they're complaining about the vulnerabilities, then it would benefit them to make sure they are removed from the system so that those exploiting it are no longer impacting their bottom line. By leaving the flaws and saying "because no one talks about it, no one knows about it" they have absolutely NO WAY of verifying how many unauthorized passengers their system is carrying and how much revenue they might be missing out on.
The solution is to have a solution, say "well because the court order says they cant tell people, no one will know!" and all you have your head in the sand.
I would agree with you, had the MBTA actually taken the initiative to work on solving these issues. Instead their rep stated that if its not known, its not a problem.
Then they go and release more sensitive details in their court documents which are public record than the original presentation was to discuss.
Had the MBTA stated that "they are currently working on resolving the issues, and would want the talk delayed until they are solved" then you would be exactly correct that the presentation should wait. In the end, this is more about pointing out that the MBTA bureaucracy is being incredibly stupid as well as dangerous in their processes.
If nobody knows where a door is the lock on it doesn't matter.
yes, maybe 99 times out of 100.
And then theres the other 1, like say when an idiot files more vulnerabilities in their court briefs which are public record than the original presentation was going to uncover.
Security through obscurity only works probabilistically, and given a long enough time frame it will always hit the P=1 where someone will have breached it and disseminated the information. This is exactly why security through obscurity is completely retarded when it involves systems intended to operate in any form of long term.
why not change the law such that you have to apply for an extension of copyright? If nothing is filed within, say, 10 years of expiration, then the work goes into the public domain. I'd say 10 years is a long enough time to realize profits on even the most unwanted cartoon character."
The only issue i find with that is although you give a decent time frame of 10 years, it still would add overhead to the maintenance of a copyright. There's already big enough entry fees for being in the "i LEGALLY had an idea!" club.
If anyone is currently able to catalogue and keep track of their copyrights, it's established and valued rights holders. I would see this kind of attempt amounting to nothing to the established rights holders and slightly harming the low end of burgeoning creators.
Nah, this is plain old Godwin.
Any story that involves the Patriot Act will have it compared to the Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State.
Course, its an apt comparison but still holds with the original law.
Latin. Its the roman numeral for 1000.
See milli.
There has been constant collusion between Bell and Telus for quite some time. Keep in mind that they are in a network sharing agreement when it comes to Wireless service where Telus provides Bell with towers out west in canada, while Bell provides Telus customers the same out east. Both use CDMA based networks that transparently use each others technology, so having them both change at the same time definitely involved some collusion.
Crying anti-trust about telcos in canada does not seem to go very far though, as somehow the GSM companies side of the ledger is supposedly the balance. I'm pretty sure that having both of them change at the same time was actually a part of the strategy, as if one changed and the other did not it would weaken their argument that these charges are "necessary" due to the cost of maintaining the service.
I would love for someone in the court room to ask them 'if they had to double the revenue from pay-per-use sms because of the cost of having sms service, how would they suggest running any CDMA network without SMS even if its not available to the customers as a service?'.
However, it's likely this tool is relatively safe
so, working in the insurance industry too eh?
WOW, That sounds like existance in general.
"Life will find a way"
That's the way a rational mind would approach existence. How that relates to "life will find a way" i definitely do not see however. Fictitious chaoticians aren't science.
Keep in mind the number of examples where in following that process, nothing finds a way. The whole point of science is to find out where we're wrong. Science can never say we are 100% right about anything as the whole process is SUPPOSED TO BE about trying to make our assumptions fail.
All we can say is that until a theory fails a test, you cannot say it is impossible. Just like how scientists should never say a God is impossible as we simply do not have the data nor the tests that would mean anything.
Well, i'm not sure where you were going with all of that.
In any field where we cannot be reasonably certain of the tests we're doing let alone the results, it's going to involve a lot of conjecture. The scientists who refuse to say "We just don't know" are on the path to dogmatic thought not scientific thought. I would expect any field on the fringe of our knowledge to involve a lot of uncertainty and a lot of people being shown wrong....constantly. If they weren't being shown to be wrong constantly, that'd be about as likely as coding a huge project on the fly once with no debugging and have it work the first compile.
I don't see how that aspect of human nature has any bearing on the scientific method though.
Scientific theories only hold out until something else comes along with more facts that change our understanding
Right. That's called the scientific method.
It's kinda the whole point. Do what you can with what you have where you are, and when you find out how you're wrong you adapt.
Easy kills for bumping up those early weapon skills.
They also zap you.
It is straight from an address of his to the New York City High School Teachers Association from january 9th 1909 (when he was the principal at Princeton). I infuriated my AP US History teacher no end by harping on those points back in the day when we read the speech, but to be fair i cannot remember enough to absolutely be sure of the context nor can i seem to find a copy of it. If you manage to get access to the Princeton copies of the Papers of Woodrow Wilson prior to his innauguration, check the jan 1909 box. That's the best pointer i got at the moment.
I'm going by my memories of the impression i got, and the fact that my teacher at the time had no rebuttals. That's only correlation but whether he was misquoted or not, the system described is what america got. Have you looked in on the quality of education in an average General or even some College prep course loads recently? My experiences are over a decade ago at this point but I never had to do a damned thing until i hit AP courses. It's not like i'm the sharpest of marbles either.
The current system is almost word for word exactly what Woodrow Wilson wanted the education system to become. I wouldn't blame Reagan for more than accelerating the process.
"We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
-- Woodrow Wilson
There we go...bringing class into it again... it makes life difficult for some when things aren't easily classified as "will be exploited" or "will exploit".
Hell, we're almost at the centennial anniversary of this plan.
Yes, but being right means you're not paranoid
Not for that specific reason at least. It's like how some of us do not suffer from insanity.
We do enjoy every minute of it.