I think this is the question that should be at the core of this issue.
In terms of music and rights of artists versus individuals, it is both impossible and infringing on individual civil liberties for record companies like the MPAA to try and regulate listener's habits. This includes listening to your friends' music at their place and may well include getting together with like-minded folks (either in person or virtually) and listening to each others' music. On this dimension, Napster is a perfectly reasonable virtual sharing of musical interests. Based on this alone, there should be no regulation or prohibition here.
The question of restricting civil liberties come when a person or entity is harmed by the practice of these liberties. At this point, there is no evidence that Napster or other file sharing systems have hurt the MPAA or any recording artist. In fact, record sales data for Napster users suggests that contrary.
It seems only reasonable, then, that the burden should fall on the MPAA and others involved in this sort of litigation to prove that they have been and will continue to be substantially harmed by these sorts of service. Alarmism and overreaction on the part of the MPAA because they have lost some control over the distribution of music that somebody has purchased is not fair grounds for restricting civil liberties.
I think reqired laptops and more motion toward the integration of technology and education is a great step. Having taught and been taught in classrooms where computers are used heavily, there is much that technology can do in the way of making learning easier and bringing examples directly to you.
I am somewhat concerned, however, that this sort of thing could become bogged down in bureacracy, with idiotic requirements like trying to restrict the laptop make to a single manufacturer or specific model. It would also be important to take steps to ensure that this technology will be used, as many may profs and students may see the technology as a toy and of no practical value.
This finding seems to be generally consistenty with previous theories of the function of sleep and dreaming. Basically, the idea is that sleep and dreaming occurs to provide the brain an opportunity not only to rest, but to sift, sort, and integrate information that is gained throughout the day. That's why when you work intensely at something for hours, it's likely to appear in dreams.
It seems like everyone is interested in encryption lately, particularly with fascinating books like "The Code Book" being available on the market. It seems like level of encryption should be a core issue here.
For example, if we're talking about keeping marketing people from getting on your machine to try and play Solitaire, your encryption needs are minimal and not processor-intensive. However, if you're worried about someone stealing your laptop, taking it to a lab, hacking into it with vast resources and smarts, and extracting your highly sensitive information, you will need more powerful encryption that, by its nature, will slow down the machine in general.
The way I see it, there are a number of reasons people play games:
1. To kill time --for this realism does not matter.
2. Plain fun --for this, enhanced graphics and realistic sounds can make a game more fun. However, good storytelling and well-designed gameplay can do this too (e.g., early Zork series).
3. To escape. --some people enjoy the sensation of being swept into a different world when they play a game. The idea is playing a character other than yourself with abilities to do things and manipulate parts of the world that you otherwise would not have access to, either because of their non-existence or your inability to jump 30 feet while taking out 30 bad guys with your SMG. For this, high-end graphics and sound that contribute to realism are very important. Now, a person can certainly get this from running a well-tuned imagination on high speed, but nowadays, lots of people don't have the time or energy to do this. Hence the popularity of high-end graphics.
Does this mean realism in a game makes it more fun? For many people, definitely yes. Do we need this to have fun? Probably not.
This peer-to-peer networking concept is good, but there seems to be an issue of trust in play.
It's like when you share a bathroom with someone. Generally it's ok to share a toilet, sink, and the same roll of toilet paper (as long as users aren't there at the same time). But you don't want to share your bathroom with some stinky loser. It might lead to your comfortable room with the reading stool looking like a public restroom.
I see the delay to production of the Pentium 4 as a non-harmful event. Those of you out there who have to have the biggest and fastest, ok --Pentium 4 may be just what you need. Just like a balding 40-year-old going through a mid-life crisis needs a red convertable Jaguar.
But really, at this point the tech market is lagging, software has fallen far far behind top-of-the line processors, and we (as consumers, mind you) don't need more power except to fulfill some non-productive urge. And there is no doubt that the P-4 is targeted at base-level consumers and not folks rendering high-end graphics and animations.
Oh, and I'll put money on the P-4 being less stable than previous generation processors.
So, this begs the question... If two people, using part of AT&T's broadband network, meet, fall in love, and so forth, specifically what piece of pie does AT&T think they're entitled to?
Flaming happens because: 1. People read something that engenders a strong emotional response, usually anger.
2. They respond to what angered them in a manner that contains incendiary language, which is clearly expressive of their intense emotion.
3. This message is received and responded to in kind, evoking more intense emotion, which is then communicated in the next response
4. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It becomes a vicious cycle.
When we talk to people face-to-face, there are tons of social cues that we learned to attend to while growing up. These cues strongly inhibit incendiary behavior. Otherwise it would be one big constant barfight. Think of it this way, people get in fights more when intoxicated because those cues are harder to see. Online, those cues are gone.
Theft? What is theft of music?
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 5
This notion baffles me.
What constitutes theft of music? Is it actually possessing a CD or file, or is it simply the act of listening to a song without paying for it? As a story earlier today demonstrates, the RIAA seems to think that they can approach any person who plays music (netcasters in this case) and demand payment.
So where are we? If we listen to a CD at a friend's house, are we thieves? If we play our music at work and others enjoy it, is this theft? This area is terribly fuzzy, but I am certain that the RIAA's angle is on the far side of ridiculous.
So, let me see.. this means that I could go for a walk through Canberra and get hit be some stray signal from a mpeg featuring Pamela Anderson hard at work??
Without a doubt, costs exclude some individuals from this "virtual community." But what about the community of individuals in high priced neighborhoods or business communities? Are these not real collections of indviduals who interact in a manner that defines their community structure? The "virutal community" may be an exclusive community, but exclusivity does not make it not a community.
I think the logical danger that this argument runs into as well is that by the same standards that a "virtual community" could be considered not a community, so could a material community. For example, if members of the community, in the process of living their lives, go to the grocery store and say, "Hi!" to each other from across the parking lot, there is no material interaction. There's visual contact (across the net, no problem). There's auditory contact (across the net, no problem). The only place we fall short on the net is physical contact (often not done in "real" communities) and olfactory contact (done only when the people in your community miss baths and forget their deodorant).
Note the operative word here, "most". Most of the world lags behind. Despite your apparent belief regarding the importance of Europe, it is far from most of the world. In fact, the technologically advanced part of Europe of which you speak only constitutes about 5% of the world population.
You would do well to consider that this thread is about tech positions for foreigners in the US and not the technological supremacy of the US versus Western/Northern Europe. Oh, and please do try to be nice!
The US is notorious for hiring away foriegners with skills in tech fields. This causes numerous problems. First, the inflow of foriegners working in tech jobs for low pay (perhaps low enough to be considered exploitative) leaves US citizens in a position where it's harder to find the "right" job. Second, the countries from which these folks come are left with a serious deficit in tech-skilled people. Ever wonder why most of the rest of the world is so underdeveloped technologically?
It's great that Microsoft is responding to consumer demand and criticism on this front. I just think it's odd (perhaps only a coincidence) that a company like MS ups it's consumer friendliness when it's having troubles with revenue and recent lows in its stock value.
I loved the three episodes of the show that I saw, but I agree that it's a bit cheesy to see them discover "just right" materials that don't really belong in a junkyard.
Perhaps producers could vary it a bit by giving teams free access to materials in the junkyard as well as limited access (say --pick 5 items) from a cache of useful materials that are very unlikely to be found in a junkyard. That sort of approach could substantially increase the variety of things that could be built.
Slashdot Mirror
My fellow geeks:
Now is the time to play the "Only if you were the last man on earth" card.
Go for it!
You might get lucky.
Hey.. if these flying wings can serve as cheap satellites, any moderate to large corp. can buy one. We could have spy psuedo-satellites everywhere.
Next thing you know, the RIAA will be looking in the window to see who has Napster running.
Spooky spooky!!
Even if we didn't have to worry about security, privacy, and potential spamwaves, I still can't get over the shape of this thing!
Just look at it here.
Why did they have to make it that shape? Did they collaborate with the net pr0n industry to prototype this thing??
Leave the cue cat where it belongs: in mom's underwear drawer.
I think this is the question that should be at the core of this issue.
In terms of music and rights of artists versus individuals, it is both impossible and infringing on individual civil liberties for record companies like the MPAA to try and regulate listener's habits. This includes listening to your friends' music at their place and may well include getting together with like-minded folks (either in person or virtually) and listening to each others' music. On this dimension, Napster is a perfectly reasonable virtual sharing of musical interests. Based on this alone, there should be no regulation or prohibition here.
The question of restricting civil liberties come when a person or entity is harmed by the practice of these liberties. At this point, there is no evidence that Napster or other file sharing systems have hurt the MPAA or any recording artist. In fact, record sales data for Napster users suggests that contrary.
It seems only reasonable, then, that the burden should fall on the MPAA and others involved in this sort of litigation to prove that they have been and will continue to be substantially harmed by these sorts of service. Alarmism and overreaction on the part of the MPAA because they have lost some control over the distribution of music that somebody has purchased is not fair grounds for restricting civil liberties.
I think reqired laptops and more motion toward the integration of technology and education is a great step. Having taught and been taught in classrooms where computers are used heavily, there is much that technology can do in the way of making learning easier and bringing examples directly to you.
I am somewhat concerned, however, that this sort of thing could become bogged down in bureacracy, with idiotic requirements like trying to restrict the laptop make to a single manufacturer or specific model. It would also be important to take steps to ensure that this technology will be used, as many may profs and students may see the technology as a toy and of no practical value.
Hey.. that's a pretty neat idea.
I'll call my patent attorney tomorrow and see if I can make their idea my intellectual property.
Give me 2 days and all you folks will owe me lots of money. In two weeks, I'll own slashdot. Ahh... the sky's the limit.
Megalomania gives me such a nice warm fuzzy feeling.
This finding seems to be generally consistenty with previous theories of the function of sleep and dreaming. Basically, the idea is that sleep and dreaming occurs to provide the brain an opportunity not only to rest, but to sift, sort, and integrate information that is gained throughout the day. That's why when you work intensely at something for hours, it's likely to appear in dreams.
It seems like everyone is interested in encryption lately, particularly with fascinating books like "The Code Book" being available on the market. It seems like level of encryption should be a core issue here.
For example, if we're talking about keeping marketing people from getting on your machine to try and play Solitaire, your encryption needs are minimal and not processor-intensive. However, if you're worried about someone stealing your laptop, taking it to a lab, hacking into it with vast resources and smarts, and extracting your highly sensitive information, you will need more powerful encryption that, by its nature, will slow down the machine in general.
The way I see it, there are a number of reasons people play games:
1. To kill time --for this realism does not matter.
2. Plain fun --for this, enhanced graphics and realistic sounds can make a game more fun. However, good storytelling and well-designed gameplay can do this too (e.g., early Zork series).
3. To escape. --some people enjoy the sensation of being swept into a different world when they play a game. The idea is playing a character other than yourself with abilities to do things and manipulate parts of the world that you otherwise would not have access to, either because of their non-existence or your inability to jump 30 feet while taking out 30 bad guys with your SMG. For this, high-end graphics and sound that contribute to realism are very important. Now, a person can certainly get this from running a well-tuned imagination on high speed, but nowadays, lots of people don't have the time or energy to do this. Hence the popularity of high-end graphics.
Does this mean realism in a game makes it more fun? For many people, definitely yes. Do we need this to have fun? Probably not.
This peer-to-peer networking concept is good, but there seems to be an issue of trust in play.
It's like when you share a bathroom with someone. Generally it's ok to share a toilet, sink, and the same roll of toilet paper (as long as users aren't there at the same time). But you don't want to share your bathroom with some stinky loser. It might lead to your comfortable room with the reading stool looking like a public restroom.
Well, you know what they say in the nanotech field:
"Don't sweat the small stuff, because it's all small stuff."
OOhh... this sounds good. If I put one of these suckers in my tv remote control, I might never have to get up off my ass again.
Wow.. you learn a little something every day.
I initially thought Cue Cat was some sort of fancy vibrator. Amazing the things you can learn reading
I imagine it could still be hacked to scan for signs of cervical cancer and take you to the AMA website if any abnormalities popped up.
I see the delay to production of the Pentium 4 as a non-harmful event. Those of you out there who have to have the biggest and fastest, ok --Pentium 4 may be just what you need. Just like a balding 40-year-old going through a mid-life crisis needs a red convertable Jaguar.
But really, at this point the tech market is lagging, software has fallen far far behind top-of-the line processors, and we (as consumers, mind you) don't need more power except to fulfill some non-productive urge. And there is no doubt that the P-4 is targeted at base-level consumers and not folks rendering high-end graphics and animations.
Oh, and I'll put money on the P-4 being less stable than previous generation processors.
So, this begs the question... If two people, using part of AT&T's broadband network, meet, fall in love, and so forth, specifically what piece of pie does AT&T think they're entitled to?
Flaming happens because:
1. People read something that engenders a strong emotional response, usually anger.
2. They respond to what angered them in a manner that contains incendiary language, which is clearly expressive of their intense emotion.
3. This message is received and responded to in kind, evoking more intense emotion, which is then communicated in the next response
4. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. It becomes a vicious cycle.
When we talk to people face-to-face, there are tons of social cues that we learned to attend to while growing up. These cues strongly inhibit incendiary behavior. Otherwise it would be one big constant barfight. Think of it this way, people get in fights more when intoxicated because those cues are harder to see. Online, those cues are gone.
This notion baffles me.
What constitutes theft of music? Is it actually possessing a CD or file, or is it simply the act of listening to a song without paying for it? As a story earlier today demonstrates, the RIAA seems to think that they can approach any person who plays music (netcasters in this case) and demand payment.
So where are we? If we listen to a CD at a friend's house, are we thieves? If we play our music at work and others enjoy it, is this theft? This area is terribly fuzzy, but I am certain that the RIAA's angle is on the far side of ridiculous.
I'm just wondering when the RIAA will start charging me for playing music at home.
I wonder if there will be and added surcharge depending on the number of people in my house at the time.
Also, will the RIAA charge me depending on the number of pets I have who might listen to the music being played.
Perhaps they should name the mouse Algernon.
So, let me see.. this means that I could go for a walk through Canberra and get hit be some stray signal from a mpeg featuring Pamela Anderson hard at work??
Awesome!
Without a doubt, costs exclude some individuals from this "virtual community." But what about the community of individuals in high priced neighborhoods or business communities? Are these not real collections of indviduals who interact in a manner that defines their community structure? The "virutal community" may be an exclusive community, but exclusivity does not make it not a community.
I think the logical danger that this argument runs into as well is that by the same standards that a "virtual community" could be considered not a community, so could a material community. For example, if members of the community, in the process of living their lives, go to the grocery store and say, "Hi!" to each other from across the parking lot, there is no material interaction. There's visual contact (across the net, no problem). There's auditory contact (across the net, no problem). The only place we fall short on the net is physical contact (often not done in "real" communities) and olfactory contact (done only when the people in your community miss baths and forget their deodorant).
Note the operative word here, "most". Most of the world lags behind. Despite your apparent belief regarding the importance of Europe, it is far from most of the world. In fact, the technologically advanced part of Europe of which you speak only constitutes about 5% of the world population.
You would do well to consider that this thread is about tech positions for foreigners in the US and not the technological supremacy of the US versus Western/Northern Europe. Oh, and please do try to be nice!
The US is notorious for hiring away foriegners with skills in tech fields. This causes numerous problems. First, the inflow of foriegners working in tech jobs for low pay (perhaps low enough to be considered exploitative) leaves US citizens in a position where it's harder to find the "right" job. Second, the countries from which these folks come are left with a serious deficit in tech-skilled people. Ever wonder why most of the rest of the world is so underdeveloped technologically?
It's great that Microsoft is responding to consumer demand and criticism on this front. I just think it's odd (perhaps only a coincidence) that a company like MS ups it's consumer friendliness when it's having troubles with revenue and recent lows in its stock value.
I loved the three episodes of the show that I saw, but I agree that it's a bit cheesy to see them discover "just right" materials that don't really belong in a junkyard.
Perhaps producers could vary it a bit by giving teams free access to materials in the junkyard as well as limited access (say --pick 5 items) from a cache of useful materials that are very unlikely to be found in a junkyard. That sort of approach could substantially increase the variety of things that could be built.