Graphics are reaching the point of being 'good enough' on cheap hardware, now they'll need to find something new to push processing power into (like you said - physics, sound, AI etc.) to make the latest technology worth buying.
Either that or Windows will need to come up with some new and shinier interface to drive along demand for graphics cards again. Maybe if every window was turned into a cube... and those cubes were made of jelly... and that jelly had fish swimming in it...
If there's a limited number of question/answer pairs then it can be broken by having a human solve each one once (or have a computer trial and error it) until they know all the answers.
It could work for a small low-profile site that isn't a big enough target to have that effort directed at breaking its Captcha, but the big players need something more dynamic.
The good folks doing all the science can hope whatever they like, so long as they don't fall victim to confirmation bias. It just seems easier to avoid junk science creeping in, if everyone involved is taking a skeptical view in both their work and their general life
On the other hand, if they're hoping to discover something crazy, that could be a powerful motivator to keep trying at a theory to get it right... just got to be careful not to be so hopeful as to ignore contradictory evidence.
The Pirate Bay holds only a torrent file, no infringing content. So long as linking to things that are infringing is legal under Swedish law, so should providing torrent files. They don't respond to takedown requests regarding copyrighted material because they don't have anything that's under copyright on their servers.
Google probably have overstepped the bounds in places... I'm undecided whether that's a bad thing; maybe the laws need to change rather than Google's behaviour, but that's beside the point really.
assumed if they thumped their chests enough they'd be immune to legal penalty.
... Meanwhile, it seems the guys from TPB will have plenty of spare time to consider whether pure arrogance was an effective strategy after all.
I thought their strategy was to set up their operations in a country where it was legal to do so. If they were in the US then it'd be an open and shut case, but they seemed pretty sure they weren't breaking Swedish law. That's for the courts to decide, but they weren't only sticking two fingers up - they were sticking their fingers up from behind what they thought was the protection of an international border.
You're right, there's no good solution to be had from suing people. Either they sue downloaders and face the bad publicity from suing the wrong people because their methodology is fundamentally flawed, or they sue the providers and face the problem that the providers aren't actually to blame. Perhaps if they had a foolproof way to identify infringers we'd be a little more understanding of their efforts, but currently they are in rather an awkward situation when it comes to trying to sue people.
Now could you point to the part where I need to think this is a problem? Maybe they should stop trying to sue away their problems and confront the real problem that their business model isn't tenable in the modern era, and continuing to try and use it is only going to alienate what customers they have left.
Are they required to actively prevent copyright infringement? Are they in fact hosting anything that infringes copyright?
Youtube would have to co-operate because they store the uploaded videos, so if a video is infringing then Youtube is liable. TPB only stores a.torrent file, which isn't under copyright.
Because TPB is in breach of the law? If they were going after the downloader you'd be arguing that they should be suing TPB. But fear not, with IPRED, they'll be going after the downloader, too!
Actually, if they were going after downloaders I'd say they were exploiting the court system with their money and lawyers... I'd be saying that in this case too if they hadn't been so shockingly incompetent.
TPB being in breach of the law is the current court decision, they still argue that they aren't and I find their argument convincing. It's yet to be seen whether an appeal court will agree. There's also nothing to say that a court wouldn't find Google to be in breach of the law if anyone were to sue them
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562).
TPB... oh wait.
Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn. There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law
From the linked article, I'd say he's onboard with Open Source (easiest quote to find: Virginia having "the first officially-approved open source textbook in the country")
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that he's not a tech guy himself; he won't be expected to go out and do the techy work. What the job requires is an understanding of technology and government, and the ability to get stuff done by supporting the right things, managing people... in short he doesn't need to be a geek so long as he has the right geeks working for him.
Google provides a search mechanism for internet content, some of which infringes copyright. TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, some of which infringes copyright.
Google maintains an index of where to find things on the internet, which searchers make use of to get what they want. TPB has a tracker, listing where to find downloads, that searchers make use of to find what they want
Google store a cache of large parts of their searchable content, keeping a copy on their servers to make searches faster. TPB... oh wait.
Why should the name make any difference? If providing the exact same service under a different name would be legal, then TPB should be just as legal.
Hell, what if TPB changed name to "The Not-Pirates-At-All Bay"? I know TNPAAB doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well, but if it would make them legally acceptable then why not?
I'll be damned if I'm writing up a whole new response every time someone equates copyright infringement with stealing, so instead you can read what is mostly a comment I posted to a discussion of The Pirate Bay's trial (edited a little to be more universal)
Copyright infringement is a distinct thing from theft. They are two separately defined legal terms, plain and simple, not the same thing. They are both illegal. They are not the same crime.
The ethics of whether copyright law should be changed or abolished, whether infringement should be made legal (and hence would no longer be "infringing") and whether illegal copyright infringement can be right or moral are all entirely separate issues. The only thing I'm saying here is that "Theft" and "Copyright Infringement" are two clear and distinct terms with different meanings under the law. There is no reason whatsoever to conflate them, and pretend they mean exactly the same thing.
Well, not quite true - there is one reason, and as far as I can see it's the only reason, and that's because "Pirates are stealing our music" has more emotional impact then "Our copyright is being infringed". The whole "you wouldn't steal a..." campaign, for example, relies on erasing the difference in people's minds between theft and infringement, to make them feel bad about something they may otherwise have been doing without thinking about it. This doesn't change the legal side of things, only peoples' perceptions, but perceptions can be powerful. The industry are using that to their advantage and I for one don't like their way of doing it, so I'll insist on correct use of the terminology.
You could even draw parallels with Orwell (although doing so feels cliched) - the 'Newspeak' idea revolved around removing words with similar meanings so that varied and nuanced ideas would be collapsed into a single concept. All forms of political dissent, freedom fighting and the like would be lumped together with terrorism and criminality, under the label "thoughtcrime", making the not-so-bad sound as bad as the very worst. Putting theft and copyright infringement together under "stealing" is the same - suddenly infringement sounds just as bad as theft because you're calling both of them stealing.
Legally speaking, they're separate, and whether infringement is as morally bad as theft or not is a side issue to be determined separately (and personally) but if we let them convince us that they're just the same thing then the debate will be over without it ever having taken place.
I feel the same shame. I bought it on stupid impulse shortly after launch despite my better instincts telling me to wait until some proper reviews surfaced. Even got as far as figuring out the return process and came so close to following through, but then I was curious... I was weak and I regret it. Anyway, I played through the animal stages, and it was sort of fun, but immensely disappointing compared to my expectations (the videos we were shown back in '05 made it look epic, what they delivered was pure meh.
Got as far as tribal and realised 2 things. There was no way in hell I wanted to win by the "social" routes, and there was no way in hell I would be able to win by the aggressive one (I tried attacking some guys and got my ass handed to me whilst all my stored food was being stolen by animals). Having played as a carnivore to that point was only going to make the peaceful route harder, and the whole thing was just a major pain in the ass. So I fooled around in the creature creator a bit (the other editors held little interest to me since I has no connection with what the parts did, maybe I'm just not the type to enjoy playing with that kind of toy) then stopped playing altogether.
It's probably a lot of fun for the right target market, probably the same market as The Sims to be honest, by which I mean the type of gamer who plays to "build things" or wants a game to be like an canvas to get creative all over. I was looking for something a little more substantial, something I could play to win. I don't think that's a lesser form of game, but either way, Spore was not of that form, regardless of what the early videos suggested. I tried playing it my way and found it wasn't fulfilling in the aspects I would have liked... I'll just quietly go back to my other games and hope someone eventually makes the game we were originally shown
I don't know how good or bad your English is, but I'll try and use only fairly common words so that it's easy to read.
Mudkip is one many Pokemon - types of animal (or plant, or robot) things from a series of cartoons and video games (and other things - toys, playing cards, all kinds of stuff)
That specific Pokemon is famous mostly for being part of a crappy internet meme, it's supposed to be funny but really, really isn't.
This might be harder on a limited amount of English, but the start of the 'joke' can be seen here
Inverting the set is easy enough, just invert the goatse guy and... wait, no that won't work - he already started doing that and it only made it more horrifying for humans. No inverting effect on the set at all.
In light of this artice, what IS a decent diet? Is it five portions of fruit a day, no fat and no salt, as many people with diverse degrees say, or is it rather a good idea to listen to what your body wants to eat even though it may partially contradict common standards?
To some extent I agree with you there - don't fear fat/salt/sugar, we need to get some those "unhealthy" things as part of the balance, but left to satisfy our wants to the full we'd eat them to excess because they're so much more easily available now than when our food-instincts were set.
Caveman types needed fat/salt/sugar to taste really damned good as a motivator to seek those relatively scarce foods out, instead of taking the easier option of eating whatever the nearest edible plant happens to be. Plus, the extra effort of obtaining energy-rich (fatty/sugary) foods would help to balance out the extra calories from eating them.
The key really is to just be sensible... we know what's healthy or unhealthy, just try to keep it balanced (all things in moderation, but some extra fruit never hurts)
Most mad scientists are actually just mad engineers.
They get all caught up in their schemes for global conquest and dominion, but no there's just sign of a hypothesis to be tested, research being done or a theory put forward...
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, that could really offend some psychologically impaired people.
Graphics are reaching the point of being 'good enough' on cheap hardware, now they'll need to find something new to push processing power into (like you said - physics, sound, AI etc.) to make the latest technology worth buying.
Either that or Windows will need to come up with some new and shinier interface to drive along demand for graphics cards again. Maybe if every window was turned into a cube... and those cubes were made of jelly... and that jelly had fish swimming in it...
And Slashdot has the same 'news' as it had a month ago?
If there's a limited number of question/answer pairs then it can be broken by having a human solve each one once (or have a computer trial and error it) until they know all the answers.
It could work for a small low-profile site that isn't a big enough target to have that effort directed at breaking its Captcha, but the big players need something more dynamic.
By empirical observation, they can fly. Your argument is invalid.
The good folks doing all the science can hope whatever they like, so long as they don't fall victim to confirmation bias. It just seems easier to avoid junk science creeping in, if everyone involved is taking a skeptical view in both their work and their general life
On the other hand, if they're hoping to discover something crazy, that could be a powerful motivator to keep trying at a theory to get it right... just got to be careful not to be so hopeful as to ignore contradictory evidence.
The Pirate Bay holds only a torrent file, no infringing content. So long as linking to things that are infringing is legal under Swedish law, so should providing torrent files. They don't respond to takedown requests regarding copyrighted material because they don't have anything that's under copyright on their servers.
assumed if they thumped their chests enough they'd be immune to legal penalty.
...
Meanwhile, it seems the guys from TPB will have plenty of spare time to consider whether pure arrogance was an effective strategy after all.
I thought their strategy was to set up their operations in a country where it was legal to do so. If they were in the US then it'd be an open and shut case, but they seemed pretty sure they weren't breaking Swedish law. That's for the courts to decide, but they weren't only sticking two fingers up - they were sticking their fingers up from behind what they thought was the protection of an international border.
You're right, there's no good solution to be had from suing people. Either they sue downloaders and face the bad publicity from suing the wrong people because their methodology is fundamentally flawed, or they sue the providers and face the problem that the providers aren't actually to blame. Perhaps if they had a foolproof way to identify infringers we'd be a little more understanding of their efforts, but currently they are in rather an awkward situation when it comes to trying to sue people.
Now could you point to the part where I need to think this is a problem? Maybe they should stop trying to sue away their problems and confront the real problem that their business model isn't tenable in the modern era, and continuing to try and use it is only going to alienate what customers they have left.
Was that a decision from the Swedish Supreme Court, or are you blowing smoke?
I think you can understand technology enough to be an effective CTO without being a hands-on tech guy yourself.
He's demonstrated by his history that he "gets it", so let's hope he does a good job here too.
Are they required to actively prevent copyright infringement? Are they in fact hosting anything that infringes copyright?
Youtube would have to co-operate because they store the uploaded videos, so if a video is infringing then Youtube is liable. TPB only stores a .torrent file, which isn't under copyright.
Because TPB is in breach of the law? If they were going after the downloader you'd be arguing that they should be suing TPB. But fear not, with IPRED, they'll be going after the downloader, too!
Actually, if they were going after downloaders I'd say they were exploiting the court system with their money and lawyers... I'd be saying that in this case too if they hadn't been so shockingly incompetent.
TPB being in breach of the law is the current court decision, they still argue that they aren't and I find their argument convincing. It's yet to be seen whether an appeal court will agree. There's also nothing to say that a court wouldn't find Google to be in breach of the law if anyone were to sue them
Google complies with takedown notices, which grants them freedom from liability according to Swedish law (18 para 2002:562). TPB... oh wait.
Well, fair point that TPB don't comply with takedown notices, but most of the requests they get are appealing to US laws like the DMCA and hence deserve a heaping of scorn. There is also the fact that they don't host anything that's under copyright, so they have nothing to takedown except what is effectively a link to the infringing content... and I think I'm right in saying that linking is legal under Swedish law
From the linked article, I'd say he's onboard with Open Source
(easiest quote to find: Virginia having "the first officially-approved open source textbook in the country")
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that he's not a tech guy himself; he won't be expected to go out and do the techy work. What the job requires is an understanding of technology and government, and the ability to get stuff done by supporting the right things, managing people... in short he doesn't need to be a geek so long as he has the right geeks working for him.
Why Google, and not the downloader?
Why sue TPB and not the downloader?
Google provides a search mechanism for internet content, some of which infringes copyright.
TPB provides a search mechanism for downloadable content, some of which infringes copyright.
Google maintains an index of where to find things on the internet, which searchers make use of to get what they want.
TPB has a tracker, listing where to find downloads, that searchers make use of to find what they want
Google store a cache of large parts of their searchable content, keeping a copy on their servers to make searches faster.
TPB... oh wait.
If anything, Google is more infringing.
Why should the name make any difference? If providing the exact same service under a different name would be legal, then TPB should be just as legal.
Hell, what if TPB changed name to "The Not-Pirates-At-All Bay"? I know TNPAAB doesn't quite roll off the tongue so well, but if it would make them legally acceptable then why not?
I'll be damned if I'm writing up a whole new response every time someone equates copyright infringement with stealing, so instead you can read what is mostly a comment I posted to a discussion of The Pirate Bay's trial (edited a little to be more universal)
Copyright infringement is a distinct thing from theft. They are two separately defined legal terms, plain and simple, not the same thing. They are both illegal. They are not the same crime.
The ethics of whether copyright law should be changed or abolished, whether infringement should be made legal (and hence would no longer be "infringing") and whether illegal copyright infringement can be right or moral are all entirely separate issues. The only thing I'm saying here is that "Theft" and "Copyright Infringement" are two clear and distinct terms with different meanings under the law. There is no reason whatsoever to conflate them, and pretend they mean exactly the same thing.
Well, not quite true - there is one reason, and as far as I can see it's the only reason, and that's because "Pirates are stealing our music" has more emotional impact then "Our copyright is being infringed". The whole "you wouldn't steal a..." campaign, for example, relies on erasing the difference in people's minds between theft and infringement, to make them feel bad about something they may otherwise have been doing without thinking about it. This doesn't change the legal side of things, only peoples' perceptions, but perceptions can be powerful. The industry are using that to their advantage and I for one don't like their way of doing it, so I'll insist on correct use of the terminology.
You could even draw parallels with Orwell (although doing so feels cliched) - the 'Newspeak' idea revolved around removing words with similar meanings so that varied and nuanced ideas would be collapsed into a single concept. All forms of political dissent, freedom fighting and the like would be lumped together with terrorism and criminality, under the label "thoughtcrime", making the not-so-bad sound as bad as the very worst. Putting theft and copyright infringement together under "stealing" is the same - suddenly infringement sounds just as bad as theft because you're calling both of them stealing.
Legally speaking, they're separate, and whether infringement is as morally bad as theft or not is a side issue to be determined separately (and personally) but if we let them convince us that they're just the same thing then the debate will be over without it ever having taken place.
I feel the same shame. I bought it on stupid impulse shortly after launch despite my better instincts telling me to wait until some proper reviews surfaced. Even got as far as figuring out the return process and came so close to following through, but then I was curious... I was weak and I regret it. Anyway, I played through the animal stages, and it was sort of fun, but immensely disappointing compared to my expectations (the videos we were shown back in '05 made it look epic, what they delivered was pure meh.
Got as far as tribal and realised 2 things. There was no way in hell I wanted to win by the "social" routes, and there was no way in hell I would be able to win by the aggressive one (I tried attacking some guys and got my ass handed to me whilst all my stored food was being stolen by animals). Having played as a carnivore to that point was only going to make the peaceful route harder, and the whole thing was just a major pain in the ass. So I fooled around in the creature creator a bit (the other editors held little interest to me since I has no connection with what the parts did, maybe I'm just not the type to enjoy playing with that kind of toy) then stopped playing altogether.
It's probably a lot of fun for the right target market, probably the same market as The Sims to be honest, by which I mean the type of gamer who plays to "build things" or wants a game to be like an canvas to get creative all over. I was looking for something a little more substantial, something I could play to win. I don't think that's a lesser form of game, but either way, Spore was not of that form, regardless of what the early videos suggested. I tried playing it my way and found it wasn't fulfilling in the aspects I would have liked... I'll just quietly go back to my other games and hope someone eventually makes the game we were originally shown
I don't know how good or bad your English is, but I'll try and use only fairly common words so that it's easy to read.
Mudkip is one many Pokemon - types of animal (or plant, or robot) things from a series of cartoons and video games (and other things - toys, playing cards, all kinds of stuff)
That specific Pokemon is famous mostly for being part of a crappy internet meme, it's supposed to be funny but really, really isn't.
This might be harder on a limited amount of English, but the start of the 'joke' can be seen here
Inverting the set is easy enough, just invert the goatse guy and ... wait, no that won't work - he already started doing that and it only made it more horrifying for humans. No inverting effect on the set at all.
X% of people will never claim the money back, they're basically just gambling... not that this is any better than what you said.
Unfortunately the whole thing seems to be filled with either pages of seemingly random Chinese characters or spam for WoW gold and "AAAOE.com"
In light of this artice, what IS a decent diet? Is it five portions of fruit a day, no fat and no salt, as many people with diverse degrees say, or is it rather a good idea to listen to what your body wants to eat even though it may partially contradict common standards?
To some extent I agree with you there - don't fear fat/salt/sugar, we need to get some those "unhealthy" things as part of the balance, but left to satisfy our wants to the full we'd eat them to excess because they're so much more easily available now than when our food-instincts were set.
Caveman types needed fat/salt/sugar to taste really damned good as a motivator to seek those relatively scarce foods out, instead of taking the easier option of eating whatever the nearest edible plant happens to be. Plus, the extra effort of obtaining energy-rich (fatty/sugary) foods would help to balance out the extra calories from eating them.
The key really is to just be sensible... we know what's healthy or unhealthy, just try to keep it balanced (all things in moderation, but some extra fruit never hurts)
Ok, you try jumping off a building with those things, and see how much falling damage you take.
Most mad scientists are actually just mad engineers.
They get all caught up in their schemes for global conquest and dominion, but no there's just sign of a hypothesis to be tested, research being done or a theory put forward...