I don't know, man... the one you posted is notorious for pretending to be a bank but taking unexplained fees out whenever they feel like it. Reverse psychology, good show.
The computer graphics are simply storytelling. They are advancing the plot. A facial recognition program always displays the subject and the comparison photos, despite the additional overhead that could be better used for searching. Plus, the searches should be done remotely, so we wouldn't even have access - upload and wait for a "job finished" message.
They are trying to graphically illustrate what the internals of the computer are doing. To most people, computers are magic anyway, so who cares if it's realistic magic or unrealistic?
I didn't read the other 5 pages of comments, but the first page was just "writers are so dumb" so I stopped. Sorry if it's a dupe, hopefully I'm not the only person to apply critical thinking and come up with a reasonable explanation.
I can't believe you're comparing some crap metaphor about a single TV series to a major artistic movement that altered the trajectory of the history of art.
When I use too many words, you miss the point. When I use too few you think I missed the point. I didn't compare a show to an unrelated movement in an unrelated medium. People put names on things, and they don't always choose good names. That's the point.
I used the difficulties and lack of sense in art movement naming bacause it's fairly well known, but not many people know the background. Were I writing my master's thesis I'd write it differently, but none of that even matters. I even put the important part in bold so it would be easier to find. A large number of comments missed the point that when art does something new, people try to put names on it. Even more important, the names don't always make sense. It doesn't make it any less valid - "like hypertext in the sense that the story is interrupted to bring relevant data, like a person clicking links in a hypertext document" is a good metaphor, which was the subject of the post.
Now we have a name, and we can categorize things under that name, and we can talk about related things using that name. Previously, we didn't have one. Memento was telling a story backwards, but it wasn't backwards - the scenes were backwards, but they ran forward because I could understand what they were saying. It was a reverse reveal. I often read that way, especially blogs which take a while to get to the point. That way I read the point, and read the rest of it in the perspective of the author. It prevents me picking someone's point apart and then at the end thinking "hmm, they sort of have a point, but it's just supported poorly." It's a lot better than "out of order" storytelling like Memento, where you learn things in an order determined by the plot or characters. Instead, the authors/writers choose when to click on something, and even more interestingly choose when to show you a link, but *not* click on it, as if to say you'll find out more later, or else it's not relevant. That requires additional consideration above the normal parallel development.
Who cares what the name is, it works well enough that we can start talking about storytelling. If it's slightly metaphorical, so much the better.
Have you tried boxing? It will wear a fat man out, dead simple. Does he have to turn the Wii in? Of course he does. Nothing makes me say that, but nothing made you say he doesn't other than it just popped into your head. Do you get to keep crutches or a wheelchair? Depends on your insurance or arrangement with the doctor and other things, and I have no idea how Australian health care works. I don't see why the govs wouldn't just treat this the same way, here borrow this then give it back and we'll clean it and put it in some children's hospital.
Now, just because the doctor suggested it doesn't mean he should do it. I bet the doc just used it as an example - he doesn't have a prescription for a Wii. The article has lots of support for using it as a rehab device, but if he has other options I don't see the need for a Wii.
Yes, it looks like I just changed my opinion midstream, but I'm actually just refuting several of your assumptions. "Questionable at best" is refuted in the article, and "does he have to turn the Wii back in" dpends on information that's not available.
OK, I did that. Not one of the pages had any evidence linking HP to a crime. These were investigators hired to investigate, not HP employees asked to investigate. So unless you're going to cite some case law which is relevant you're not helping. I doubt the investigators would be considered employees. So google came back with the following two quotes.
"...[A]n employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment."
If I did not create the data, I should not be involved in its deletion. If a service is supposed to happen invisibly (like shadow copy) it should work invisibly (by not deleting needed files, and by not asking if it's okay to delete unneeded files). So if you're writing an automated process, you're taking ownership of keeping track of what's needed and what's not.
In this case, manually kicking off a system restore does not mean I created or own the data. I just asked that the process be initiated. The user does not own the data, and does not own the responsibility of managing it.
If you give people a monetary reward, their focus shifts so that the outcome is money and the solution is a byproduct. This short-circuits mental processing because the output is supposed to be a solution, and the money a byproduct dependent on the solution. Essentially what you said about panic mode only more of an explanation - a theory if you will.
The experiment is slightly disingenuous because it uses time as a limiting factor. So the outcome is not just a solution, it's a timely solution. The only reason of course that "timely" is part of the criteria is because the money depends on timeliness. So you have 3 variables - time, solution quality, and money. Up front, the optimization for money has to be done by sacrificing time. So you now have a specific pressure on one variable which is irrelevant to the scope of the study.
But that of course is the underlying discovery of the study, in which the disingenuousness of the design is irrelevant and often illuminating. In a real workplace you have things like quarterly filings and other deadlines, making time an inherent part of the process. Time gets forgotten in many of these calculations. "You're under your quota" is a time-driven incentive, "monthly figures" or "quarterly reports" are time-driven, "client delivery date" or "product launch date" are time driven.
We want results, in a given time, and you get more money if you get results faster.
Now, if you give someone no deadline and no incentive, you'll get a solution when someone gets around to it. If you give someone an 8 hour day and salary, you'll get it when they get bored. Give them a reasonable deadline and it will be done on or near the deadline. Give someone an unreasonable deadline and it will be done either immediately or way behind schedule.
With open source, the outcome is code, a working product, not money. The problem with this of course is that the people on wall street probably have poor self-motivation skills, and are masters of delayed gratification in order to maximize the material gains. Most starving artists have an internal motivation to get whatever is in their heads out on paper or canvas or whatever else, while the empty materialistic wall street types don't have that motivation. The question I'm wondering is, can they obtain internal motivation? Would they be able to re-focus so that their financial derivative's performance and client happiness is the promary goal? I'm proposing no, that no one would find intrinsic motivation moving piles of money around and skimming off the top. It's a difficult lifestyle, and if you saw the "letter from wall street" that's passing around you'd agree. This letter claims that they will take our jobs because they have the tenacity to work 14 hour days, and when their jobs go away they sill simply shift into our careers. Tenacity will not help if you're administering a server - you can't stare the box into working, or read for 14 hours a day and learn. If you try to do it by brute force, you're going to waste valuable uptime.
Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you're only going to hurt yourselves. What's going to happen when we can't find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We're going to take yours. We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We're used to not getting up to pee when we have a position.We aren't dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive.
Yep, you can math your way out of anything just by being in the office. Actually, they would not be able to take my job, nor most people's. But they think they can.
My biggest concern is the bonus culture. If you earn $9m bonus this year, but they guy who sits next you you and picks his nose half the day earned $10m bonus, you're probably going to ask why yo
Scholarly attribution of cultural shifts often use cotemporal shifts in alternate media to describe anything sufficiently novel that it can be distinguished from the previous generation. People make labels and associations out of stuff in order to categorize and examine and study, and it isn't necessarily a literal equivalence. In this case it is merely the codification of an emerging trend using an easily understandable metaphor borrowed from something most people are at least familiar with.
In other words, this has exceeded the nominal number of flashbacks for a television show, now someone is looking around for a relevant explanation and nomenclature so that people studying this can use a common understanding. "The storytelling works a lot like hypertext" is a metaphor. If it really were hypertext, it would be a choose your own adventure book.
In art, Impressionism started in painting around 1850 or so, named because a critic latched on to the painting "Impression, soleil" by Monet to describe the new style. A similar movement in music happened, probably due to the same need to break accepted rules in order to make more use of the medium. This lagged behind painting by maybe 30 years, and when music appeared they called it Impressionism too. Music had already by that time evolved through Romanticism, which broke the established Classical rules enough that it was distinguishable from the previous generation. Painting did not have that Romantic period so much, since the emphasis was on realism, and Impressionism was the rule-breaking group.
Musical Romanticism had already begun the "impression" style by introducing the tone poem and other works meant to simply evoke and emotion - not to tell a story or be enjoyed intrinsically. This started around 1830 with Mendelssohn and Franck, and Liszt. That was the musical equivalent to artistic Impressionism. The equivalent to musical Impressionism was really more like Cubism.
Tell your friends to stop, or use the "un-tag" feature to remove yourself. If people put stuff up that you don't like, contact them. Un-friend people who have no business posting about you, or keep them as friends so you can watch what they do. It ain't perfect, but it's not as hopeless as you make it. Best option is to only hang out with people who share your values systems, or at least respect yours.
mikerz did not say it sucked, in fact did not comment on the language at all. You could have said the same thing for C around 1997 - cross-compilation on gcc and msc was difficult because of compatibility issues. The quality of the language didn't matter, the quality of the implementations did.
Technically, mikerz was off-topic, but it's hard to praise the language when you can't write much useful in it without a compatibility library like jQuery or your own homebrew hacks. Writing a valid C program you can't compile in any implementation would be a better analogue.
Yup, tell me all of your success stories cross-compiling C in 1997 and how you managed to write javascript that runs in IE and firefox, you probably took a lot of time figuring out the implementations to get it working right, I don't care. It's not as compatible as it needs to be, and that sucks.
72k I don't have to download because I have NoScript, and your site better degrade gracefully or I usually find an alternative. If your site does not have minimum functionality without scripting, I don't consider it functional at all.
Re:after reading that review
on
jQuery Cookbook
·
· Score: 1
I'm with you on that one, but the publisher's website has 22 errata that the publisher has not confirmed. That's the sort of thing you should catch yourself before an editor sees it. If you don't have an editor, you need to try harder. Or we're not the intended audience, could be that.
Anything linked from slashdot.org or fark.com, possibly including comment threads, reactos.org and subdomains, piles of stuff at hp.com, dell.com, tigerdirect.com, some other similarly boring computer sellers and parts sellers, amazon.com. You didn't ask about my torrents though, which is the subject at hand.
GP thought they were being clever because they misinterpreted headkase up there. headkase had a point - privacy wouldn't be on most peoples' radar if not for the MAFIAA lawsuits. MAFIAA lawsuits wouldn't be such a big deal if people were downloading legal content. Legal content would be anything 28 years old or more (1982) or for lots of unmarketable stuff 14 years (1996). You'd either buy what's popular or download the old stuff you grew up listening to, which would give music more competition. I listen to the radio because it's free, not because it's good, and I frequently change the channel during songs as opposed to during commercials. If it doesn't sound like music I keep choosing radio stations, so I typically don't even hear the advertising at all - I'm moving that quickly. But if I could download music before 1982 I'd download the hell out of it, and more every year as the original copyrights expired, and listen to only that. The music industry would be forced to compete with itself and we would never have had to listen to Ke$ha. That would be promoting the useful arts and sciences, what exists today doesn't.
In other words, if copyright were more sane people could download piles of stuff legally, and you wouldn't have to worry about people piecing your information together. Of course people would probably still piece your information together, only it would be privacy freaks arguing about the implications with nerds instead of front-page news. But it's far more likely that the current broad-based p2p applications would not exist in their current forms if people didn't have to turn to p2p for music sharing, and could download directly from websites instead. So privacy returns to a non-issue, except of course for the people from which you download. RapidShare would still be a big hit I'm sure. so there's lots of "what if" to consider after altering history to have a sane copyright, making it difficult to really make a conclusion.
Cameron made piles of money from Titanic, and the actors/crew were paid as they agreed to up-front costs (fee or hourly). Enough that he made it possible for the kind of 3D video behind most modern 3D live-action films from Spy Kidz 3D to Avatar. Cameron gave up his fees voluntarily in order to keep Titanic going.
Fox executives knew it was in their best interest to keep the self-anointed king of the world happy. They decided to overlook the fact that he had given up his financial stake in Titanic and, in the wake of its historic Oscar run, wrote him a check for tens of millions of dollars. (Reportedly, Cameron eventually earned more than $75 million from the film.) He wouldn't have to work another day in his life.
"I had my fuck-you money," Cameron says. "It was time to go play."
Hollywood accounting is notorious, but at least try to come up with something real. Profit-sharing is kinda rare because of Hollywood accounting, so you usually have to go back a little to find an example of where it screwed someone over.
I agree, the market doesn't work. The games should have a clear "ends by" date on the label, with the publisher allowed to extend past but not prematurely terminate the server.
It would cost lots of server-side intellectual property to release the source code, especially if it's a licensed server engine. I don't think the appropriate response is to release the code anyway. If not one programmer type is interested in the game it still dies in that case.
If the consumers cannot inform themselves then we must make the publishers who benefit inform the users. "ONLINE PLAY WILL END NO EARLIER THAN APRIL 15TH 2010" might work in big red letters, or maybe "ONLINE PLAY IS SCHEDULED TO END APRIL 15TH 2010" with an asterisk that it might be extended per USC XX ss. X. That is the best answer I think.
You need to work on your analogies. I don't know about california, but in many states attempted suicide is a crime. Argue what you will, but the intent is to allow the judicial system to intervene and hopefully save the person. It is documented that the majority of suicides are cries for help, so if someone gets that desperate the system should help. Especially if no one else does.
You can be charged with a number of things, like failure to report a crime, or in some places watching a crime you could have prevented is basically assisting in it. Since you don't know in advance if the person will be successful, the crime of attempted suicide is in progress and you do nothing, resulting in a death. You could succesfully be tried for manslaughter, but in support of your statement not murder.
Let me rephrase a bit: why should I be denied the opportunity to pool my own money with office mates for an occasional diversion because your family is not able to control itself? I realize that might sound harsh, but there is "some evidence" for a genetic component to gambling, making your family members more likely to gamble obsessivly than I am. I can handle it responsibly.
In this case you have to realize that you have a deep personal stake in the matter and are probably not suited to making a decision that suits everyone. Remember when we tried to prohibit alcohol sales? Preventing people from harming themselves is a laudable goal, but it only works if we can completely stop it. We can't even do that right now - that's the whole reason behind this bill.
People are going to gamble whether we like it or not. Should we send that money out of the country or keep it here? If we allow gambling we can regulate it. I know, you want a clear conscience that you tried your best. But your best won't put up a firewall between people with problems and people who want their money. so what's the best possible outcome? Turning off all gambling everywhere is what you're looking for, but that's not possible.
What you're trying to do is what most normal people would do. There are a lot of members of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" who want to get rid of alcohol because it killed their child. It's a normal reaction, and understandable. But the original intent was to fight drunk driving, not alcohol.
The person who started MADD left in 1985. Later, she said MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." They figured if you cut out alcohol completely, drunk driving goes away. But if they succeed, you're back to prohibition-style bootlegging and it never goes away. Texting while driving is a lot more dangerous, but they don't even address it. They only care about alcohol because it was the cause, and drunk driving is a side effect.
I believe it will relieve you of a lot of guilt if you re-frame your thinking to fight gambling addiction, not gambling.
Translation Error says his works aren't infringing because he gets artists' permission. This is completely wrong. In a lot of cases, the original artist might not even own the rights. If he gets the copyright owners' permission then it could be infringing, but not prosecuted because of an agreement with the copyright holder.
jbengt is closer than Translation Error with the hint that an agreement might not avoid a legal fight.
In most cases, Weird Al is making fun of the song, a true parody. In a lot of cases, though, he is only covered because he secured the rights. A true parody has to mock the song, not just replace the lyrics. "Yoda" does not reference nor make fun of "Lola" just becuase the words are different. "Fat" is very clearly a parody of "Bad", even down to mocking the vocal stylings of Michael Jackson. This distinction is at the heart of the argument, and Weird Al is really a very poor example of the parody form since many songs fall way short of qualifying. It actually muddies the water rather than clearing things up, for the reasons listed.
I don't think Chuck DeVore has a leg to stand on, and his explanation is a backformation to try to escape justice.
For the Downfall videos, I believe the subtitles do parody the scene, very well, but I don't think it is fair-use parody. It is most likely infringing parody. Parody is not automatically fair use. Parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)
You can poke fun at Downfall without actually making any sort of comment on the work itself.
For them to tag you with any meaning, you have to have a facebook account. If you have an account, you can get alerted when someone tags you, and remove the tag.
I don't know if it's permanent or if someone can go back and re-tag you, but the power is yours.
If it's not linked to your profile, facebook has no way of knowing which of the many people by the same name is in the photo. And your employer would have to have permission to access their photo galleries to even see your photos, and it wouldn't be definitively you. They would assume it was of course, but right now you do have the power to un-tag all photos of yourself which was your concern.
You're thinking the same people are involved on both sides. (I'm taking "free" at face value since you're making an economic point.) Lots of people volunteer their code for the public good. Lots of other people are employed by companies which make money selling support for the free software. These people don't always have the same opinions. Even if they all think software should be free, they managed to get a job working on free software for money. The best of both worlds.
I think software should be free, and help out on free software, but I get paid to do proprietary stuff at work. If someone wants a database or website, I will charge for my time. But I keep running into bugs in proprietary software that I wish I could fix, so I write open-source versions of it or more typically I hack the bug fix by disassembling and patching.
If I release something open-source, it's my decision what to work on. If you want to decide, you pay for the privilige of deciding. But lots of other people will happily work on feature requests and enhancements for free, and they are not the ones with cognitive dissonance. If my software were more popular I might feel a change would benefit many people, but like most free software very few people use it, so I don't care.
Sometimes both the code and product are free but support costs money. Sometimes the code is free to download but the compiled version contains trademark or other branding, like CentOS and RedHat. Sometimes you can buy installation CDs but you can also download and build the code yourself. Some companies take software they didn't write and put it together in a target way, like Music-centric linux (Ubuntu studio style), or Real-time linux, or whatever else.
Björk, Nine Inch Nails, Public Enemy, Stardust, and in a limited fashion Erasure, have given away parts of the music and allowed fans to re-mix the music. so yes you can give away unmixed tracks, it's been done. The discussion is about music, the article is about music... bringing movies in just makes it more complicated. Animated movies as the other poster said are certainly possible but could require huge piles of data (all fo the models, the environments, the animation and rendering software).
Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support. With music, most people don't need the physical product since it's going on the iPod anyway. And they don't need support.
The entire point of the article was that open source software has many solutions, and free music has several options, but music still needs more options in order to be successful. It's not a solved problem, and the open-source model is only an inspiration. Jill Sobule is an example, but she's hardly the typical case. If you're the right person at the right time you can do that, but most people won't make it.
(yes I'm talking about the deserving garage-band people, not the attractive but unmusical pop tarts we have on the radio - they wouldn't make it without heavy AutoTune and would barely be able to scrape by on concerts - Ke$sha on SNL and the recent Black Eyed Peas on American Idol pretty much proved there are some things you just can't do live, but I'm editorializing now).
I was going to make essentially the same post as terjeber, maybe without the last line. I'll explain. Here's your opening paragraph.
I object to gambling for the same reason I object to handing a beer to an alcoholic. It's enabling their disease and you are the pimp.
I agree with terjeber that your opening equates all gamblers with alcoholics, at least the way you typed it. Not sure how you can read that any other way. If you assume: most gamblers are not addicted, and most gambling is done by addicts, because gambling addicts gamble more. Maybe you can equate the two under that theory, but a lot of addicts don't gamble, and there are piles of first-timers to Vegas every year. But without any other explanation, you conflated all gamblers with the subset of gambling addicts. You didn't even make a distinction between private and government business. You have a lead-in line, a single sentence, and a new paragraph, end of thought.
The second paragraph really doesn't follow based on your opening. If you don't like handing alcoholics a beer, keeping in mind that you did not specify government or not, then you shouldn't like letting gambling addicts gamble. But you say that private companies are fine. So you're also fine with private companies handing beer to an alcoholic? But you didn't specify that. So now either you think all gamblers are addicts, or that enabling is fine as long as it's a private entity, and it's not clear. Hopefully you can see now why people might misunderstand your comment. Your second paragraph:
If a private person wants to run gambling halls, that's fine with me, but the government should take a higher moral stance. The government should not be running Lotteries to prey upon gambling addicts. I've seen a lot of lives destroyed via their addiction to the State Lotto. Instead the government should be providing assistance to these people to help them stop (as we do with anti-drink and drive campaigns).
The government doesn't run lotteries to prey on gambling addicts, it runs lotteries to generate revenue. If a side effect of lotteries is that gambling addicts spend too much money, and the lotteries are shut down, will that stop addicts? No, but it will make you feel better about your government. That's a valid opinion, but not one state lottery is intended to prey on gambling addicts. It's intended to prey on people who are bad at probability. Like every other tax and fee out there, it takes small amounts of money into a pool, takes a bit of the top, and gives the rest to the people. In the case of a lottery it's one person at a time, or a very small group of people.
Now, if the two paragraphs are related, it's a tenuous link, and hopefully you can see that now.
While I'm here, drunk driving campaigns aren't an especially good way to get people to stop drinking and driving. It helps, but there are lots of people who believe drinking is a part of social life, and to get to that social life they have to drive. So you drive home drunk because you don't want to leave your car. A far better way to decrease drunk driving is to provide clean, safe, cheap public transportation so that people can get to the heart of the city where all of the night life is, and back out to the suburbs, without even getting behind the wheel.
"You are the pimp" actually doesn't even make sense in that context, because you're talking about gambling and addiction and then switch to prostitution which is usually, when a pimp is involved, coerced or flat-out slave labor. So you're kinda all over the map.
And I'll just tack on a little bit of confusion here - "the government" doesn't exist. Yeah I said it, it doesn't. Look it up. Either you have the state government, which runs lotteries and either licenses or sells alcohol depending on your state, or you have the federal government which runs the military. Your state government did not propose legalizing online gambling, the federa
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know, man... the one you posted is notorious for pretending to be a bank but taking unexplained fees out whenever they feel like it. Reverse psychology, good show.
The computer graphics are simply storytelling. They are advancing the plot. A facial recognition program always displays the subject and the comparison photos, despite the additional overhead that could be better used for searching. Plus, the searches should be done remotely, so we wouldn't even have access - upload and wait for a "job finished" message.
They are trying to graphically illustrate what the internals of the computer are doing. To most people, computers are magic anyway, so who cares if it's realistic magic or unrealistic?
I didn't read the other 5 pages of comments, but the first page was just "writers are so dumb" so I stopped. Sorry if it's a dupe, hopefully I'm not the only person to apply critical thinking and come up with a reasonable explanation.
When I use too many words, you miss the point. When I use too few you think I missed the point. I didn't compare a show to an unrelated movement in an unrelated medium. People put names on things, and they don't always choose good names. That's the point.
I used the difficulties and lack of sense in art movement naming bacause it's fairly well known, but not many people know the background. Were I writing my master's thesis I'd write it differently, but none of that even matters. I even put the important part in bold so it would be easier to find. A large number of comments missed the point that when art does something new, people try to put names on it. Even more important, the names don't always make sense. It doesn't make it any less valid - "like hypertext in the sense that the story is interrupted to bring relevant data, like a person clicking links in a hypertext document" is a good metaphor, which was the subject of the post.
Now we have a name, and we can categorize things under that name, and we can talk about related things using that name. Previously, we didn't have one. Memento was telling a story backwards, but it wasn't backwards - the scenes were backwards, but they ran forward because I could understand what they were saying. It was a reverse reveal. I often read that way, especially blogs which take a while to get to the point. That way I read the point, and read the rest of it in the perspective of the author. It prevents me picking someone's point apart and then at the end thinking "hmm, they sort of have a point, but it's just supported poorly." It's a lot better than "out of order" storytelling like Memento, where you learn things in an order determined by the plot or characters. Instead, the authors/writers choose when to click on something, and even more interestingly choose when to show you a link, but *not* click on it, as if to say you'll find out more later, or else it's not relevant. That requires additional consideration above the normal parallel development.
Who cares what the name is, it works well enough that we can start talking about storytelling. If it's slightly metaphorical, so much the better.
Have you tried boxing? It will wear a fat man out, dead simple. Does he have to turn the Wii in? Of course he does. Nothing makes me say that, but nothing made you say he doesn't other than it just popped into your head. Do you get to keep crutches or a wheelchair? Depends on your insurance or arrangement with the doctor and other things, and I have no idea how Australian health care works. I don't see why the govs wouldn't just treat this the same way, here borrow this then give it back and we'll clean it and put it in some children's hospital.
Now, just because the doctor suggested it doesn't mean he should do it. I bet the doc just used it as an example - he doesn't have a prescription for a Wii. The article has lots of support for using it as a rehab device, but if he has other options I don't see the need for a Wii.
Yes, it looks like I just changed my opinion midstream, but I'm actually just refuting several of your assumptions. "Questionable at best" is refuted in the article, and "does he have to turn the Wii back in" dpends on information that's not available.
OK, I did that. Not one of the pages had any evidence linking HP to a crime. These were investigators hired to investigate, not HP employees asked to investigate. So unless you're going to cite some case law which is relevant you're not helping. I doubt the investigators would be considered employees. So google came back with the following two quotes.
"...[A]n employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment."
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
"paper" decimal arithmetic on the other hand, which is what gp was talking about, you'd truncate it somewhere and say "remainder 1"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm
http://bavister.org/tools/genLuhn.php
False sense of security is a big problem, but you went overboard on your false positives example. Try again?
If I did not create the data, I should not be involved in its deletion. If a service is supposed to happen invisibly (like shadow copy) it should work invisibly (by not deleting needed files, and by not asking if it's okay to delete unneeded files). So if you're writing an automated process, you're taking ownership of keeping track of what's needed and what's not.
In this case, manually kicking off a system restore does not mean I created or own the data. I just asked that the process be initiated. The user does not own the data, and does not own the responsibility of managing it.
If you give people a monetary reward, their focus shifts so that the outcome is money and the solution is a byproduct. This short-circuits mental processing because the output is supposed to be a solution, and the money a byproduct dependent on the solution. Essentially what you said about panic mode only more of an explanation - a theory if you will.
The experiment is slightly disingenuous because it uses time as a limiting factor. So the outcome is not just a solution, it's a timely solution. The only reason of course that "timely" is part of the criteria is because the money depends on timeliness. So you have 3 variables - time, solution quality, and money. Up front, the optimization for money has to be done by sacrificing time. So you now have a specific pressure on one variable which is irrelevant to the scope of the study.
But that of course is the underlying discovery of the study, in which the disingenuousness of the design is irrelevant and often illuminating. In a real workplace you have things like quarterly filings and other deadlines, making time an inherent part of the process. Time gets forgotten in many of these calculations. "You're under your quota" is a time-driven incentive, "monthly figures" or "quarterly reports" are time-driven, "client delivery date" or "product launch date" are time driven.
We want results, in a given time, and you get more money if you get results faster.
Now, if you give someone no deadline and no incentive, you'll get a solution when someone gets around to it. If you give someone an 8 hour day and salary, you'll get it when they get bored. Give them a reasonable deadline and it will be done on or near the deadline. Give someone an unreasonable deadline and it will be done either immediately or way behind schedule.
With open source, the outcome is code, a working product, not money. The problem with this of course is that the people on wall street probably have poor self-motivation skills, and are masters of delayed gratification in order to maximize the material gains. Most starving artists have an internal motivation to get whatever is in their heads out on paper or canvas or whatever else, while the empty materialistic wall street types don't have that motivation. The question I'm wondering is, can they obtain internal motivation? Would they be able to re-focus so that their financial derivative's performance and client happiness is the promary goal? I'm proposing no, that no one would find intrinsic motivation moving piles of money around and skimming off the top. It's a difficult lifestyle, and if you saw the "letter from wall street" that's passing around you'd agree. This letter claims that they will take our jobs because they have the tenacity to work 14 hour days, and when their jobs go away they sill simply shift into our careers. Tenacity will not help if you're administering a server - you can't stare the box into working, or read for 14 hours a day and learn. If you try to do it by brute force, you're going to waste valuable uptime.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/wall-street-reportedly-ci_n_559032.html
Yep, you can math your way out of anything just by being in the office. Actually, they would not be able to take my job, nor most people's. But they think they can.
My biggest concern is the bonus culture. If you earn $9m bonus this year, but they guy who sits next you you and picks his nose half the day earned $10m bonus, you're probably going to ask why yo
Scholarly attribution of cultural shifts often use cotemporal shifts in alternate media to describe anything sufficiently novel that it can be distinguished from the previous generation. People make labels and associations out of stuff in order to categorize and examine and study, and it isn't necessarily a literal equivalence. In this case it is merely the codification of an emerging trend using an easily understandable metaphor borrowed from something most people are at least familiar with.
In other words, this has exceeded the nominal number of flashbacks for a television show, now someone is looking around for a relevant explanation and nomenclature so that people studying this can use a common understanding. "The storytelling works a lot like hypertext" is a metaphor. If it really were hypertext, it would be a choose your own adventure book.
In art, Impressionism started in painting around 1850 or so, named because a critic latched on to the painting "Impression, soleil" by Monet to describe the new style. A similar movement in music happened, probably due to the same need to break accepted rules in order to make more use of the medium. This lagged behind painting by maybe 30 years, and when music appeared they called it Impressionism too. Music had already by that time evolved through Romanticism, which broke the established Classical rules enough that it was distinguishable from the previous generation. Painting did not have that Romantic period so much, since the emphasis was on realism, and Impressionism was the rule-breaking group.
Musical Romanticism had already begun the "impression" style by introducing the tone poem and other works meant to simply evoke and emotion - not to tell a story or be enjoyed intrinsically. This started around 1830 with Mendelssohn and Franck, and Liszt. That was the musical equivalent to artistic Impressionism. The equivalent to musical Impressionism was really more like Cubism.
Tell your friends to stop, or use the "un-tag" feature to remove yourself. If people put stuff up that you don't like, contact them. Un-friend people who have no business posting about you, or keep them as friends so you can watch what they do. It ain't perfect, but it's not as hopeless as you make it. Best option is to only hang out with people who share your values systems, or at least respect yours.
mikerz did not say it sucked, in fact did not comment on the language at all. You could have said the same thing for C around 1997 - cross-compilation on gcc and msc was difficult because of compatibility issues. The quality of the language didn't matter, the quality of the implementations did.
Technically, mikerz was off-topic, but it's hard to praise the language when you can't write much useful in it without a compatibility library like jQuery or your own homebrew hacks. Writing a valid C program you can't compile in any implementation would be a better analogue.
Yup, tell me all of your success stories cross-compiling C in 1997 and how you managed to write javascript that runs in IE and firefox, you probably took a lot of time figuring out the implementations to get it working right, I don't care. It's not as compatible as it needs to be, and that sucks.
72k I don't have to download because I have NoScript, and your site better degrade gracefully or I usually find an alternative. If your site does not have minimum functionality without scripting, I don't consider it functional at all.
I'm with you on that one, but the publisher's website has 22 errata that the publisher has not confirmed. That's the sort of thing you should catch yourself before an editor sees it. If you don't have an editor, you need to try harder. Or we're not the intended audience, could be that.
Anything linked from slashdot.org or fark.com, possibly including comment threads, reactos.org and subdomains, piles of stuff at hp.com, dell.com, tigerdirect.com, some other similarly boring computer sellers and parts sellers, amazon.com. You didn't ask about my torrents though, which is the subject at hand.
GP thought they were being clever because they misinterpreted headkase up there. headkase had a point - privacy wouldn't be on most peoples' radar if not for the MAFIAA lawsuits. MAFIAA lawsuits wouldn't be such a big deal if people were downloading legal content. Legal content would be anything 28 years old or more (1982) or for lots of unmarketable stuff 14 years (1996). You'd either buy what's popular or download the old stuff you grew up listening to, which would give music more competition. I listen to the radio because it's free, not because it's good, and I frequently change the channel during songs as opposed to during commercials. If it doesn't sound like music I keep choosing radio stations, so I typically don't even hear the advertising at all - I'm moving that quickly. But if I could download music before 1982 I'd download the hell out of it, and more every year as the original copyrights expired, and listen to only that. The music industry would be forced to compete with itself and we would never have had to listen to Ke$ha. That would be promoting the useful arts and sciences, what exists today doesn't.
In other words, if copyright were more sane people could download piles of stuff legally, and you wouldn't have to worry about people piecing your information together. Of course people would probably still piece your information together, only it would be privacy freaks arguing about the implications with nerds instead of front-page news. But it's far more likely that the current broad-based p2p applications would not exist in their current forms if people didn't have to turn to p2p for music sharing, and could download directly from websites instead. So privacy returns to a non-issue, except of course for the people from which you download. RapidShare would still be a big hit I'm sure. so there's lots of "what if" to consider after altering history to have a sane copyright, making it difficult to really make a conclusion.
Cameron made piles of money from Titanic, and the actors/crew were paid as they agreed to up-front costs (fee or hourly). Enough that he made it possible for the kind of 3D video behind most modern 3D live-action films from Spy Kidz 3D to Avatar. Cameron gave up his fees voluntarily in order to keep Titanic going.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_cameron/
Fox executives knew it was in their best interest to keep the self-anointed king of the world happy. They decided to overlook the fact that he had given up his financial stake in Titanic and, in the wake of its historic Oscar run, wrote him a check for tens of millions of dollars. (Reportedly, Cameron eventually earned more than $75 million from the film.) He wouldn't have to work another day in his life.
"I had my fuck-you money," Cameron says. "It was time to go play."
Hollywood accounting is notorious, but at least try to come up with something real. Profit-sharing is kinda rare because of Hollywood accounting, so you usually have to go back a little to find an example of where it screwed someone over.
I agree, the market doesn't work. The games should have a clear "ends by" date on the label, with the publisher allowed to extend past but not prematurely terminate the server.
It would cost lots of server-side intellectual property to release the source code, especially if it's a licensed server engine. I don't think the appropriate response is to release the code anyway. If not one programmer type is interested in the game it still dies in that case.
If the consumers cannot inform themselves then we must make the publishers who benefit inform the users. "ONLINE PLAY WILL END NO EARLIER THAN APRIL 15TH 2010" might work in big red letters, or maybe "ONLINE PLAY IS SCHEDULED TO END APRIL 15TH 2010" with an asterisk that it might be extended per USC XX ss. X. That is the best answer I think.
You need to work on your analogies. I don't know about california, but in many states attempted suicide is a crime. Argue what you will, but the intent is to allow the judicial system to intervene and hopefully save the person. It is documented that the majority of suicides are cries for help, so if someone gets that desperate the system should help. Especially if no one else does.
You can be charged with a number of things, like failure to report a crime, or in some places watching a crime you could have prevented is basically assisting in it. Since you don't know in advance if the person will be successful, the crime of attempted suicide is in progress and you do nothing, resulting in a death. You could succesfully be tried for manslaughter, but in support of your statement not murder.
Next time, maybe he'll make his point using only XKCD links or Maddox quotes and you'll enjoy it a lot more.
Let me rephrase a bit: why should I be denied the opportunity to pool my own money with office mates for an occasional diversion because your family is not able to control itself? I realize that might sound harsh, but there is "some evidence" for a genetic component to gambling, making your family members more likely to gamble obsessivly than I am. I can handle it responsibly.
In this case you have to realize that you have a deep personal stake in the matter and are probably not suited to making a decision that suits everyone. Remember when we tried to prohibit alcohol sales? Preventing people from harming themselves is a laudable goal, but it only works if we can completely stop it. We can't even do that right now - that's the whole reason behind this bill.
People are going to gamble whether we like it or not. Should we send that money out of the country or keep it here? If we allow gambling we can regulate it. I know, you want a clear conscience that you tried your best. But your best won't put up a firewall between people with problems and people who want their money. so what's the best possible outcome? Turning off all gambling everywhere is what you're looking for, but that's not possible.
What you're trying to do is what most normal people would do. There are a lot of members of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" who want to get rid of alcohol because it killed their child. It's a normal reaction, and understandable. But the original intent was to fight drunk driving, not alcohol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner
The person who started MADD left in 1985. Later, she said MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned ... I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." They figured if you cut out alcohol completely, drunk driving goes away. But if they succeed, you're back to prohibition-style bootlegging and it never goes away. Texting while driving is a lot more dangerous, but they don't even address it. They only care about alcohol because it was the cause, and drunk driving is a side effect.
I believe it will relieve you of a lot of guilt if you re-frame your thinking to fight gambling addiction, not gambling.
Translation Error says his works aren't infringing because he gets artists' permission. This is completely wrong. In a lot of cases, the original artist might not even own the rights. If he gets the copyright owners' permission then it could be infringing, but not prosecuted because of an agreement with the copyright holder.
I was about to call nabsltd a liar, but he does secure the rights. It's not clear if he pays any money, but I'm going to trust nabsltd that it would be required. Here's a citation for everyone who says it's OK because he asks permission. No, he actually goes through the legal process to make sure he's covered.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?70+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+185+(spring+2007)
http://www.pauseandplay.com/weirdal.htm
jbengt is closer than Translation Error with the hint that an agreement might not avoid a legal fight.
In most cases, Weird Al is making fun of the song, a true parody. In a lot of cases, though, he is only covered because he secured the rights. A true parody has to mock the song, not just replace the lyrics. "Yoda" does not reference nor make fun of "Lola" just becuase the words are different. "Fat" is very clearly a parody of "Bad", even down to mocking the vocal stylings of Michael Jackson. This distinction is at the heart of the argument, and Weird Al is really a very poor example of the parody form since many songs fall way short of qualifying. It actually muddies the water rather than clearing things up, for the reasons listed.
I don't think Chuck DeVore has a leg to stand on, and his explanation is a backformation to try to escape justice.
For the Downfall videos, I believe the subtitles do parody the scene, very well, but I don't think it is fair-use parody. It is most likely infringing parody. Parody is not automatically fair use. Parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.)
You can poke fun at Downfall without actually making any sort of comment on the work itself.
For them to tag you with any meaning, you have to have a facebook account. If you have an account, you can get alerted when someone tags you, and remove the tag.
I don't know if it's permanent or if someone can go back and re-tag you, but the power is yours.
If it's not linked to your profile, facebook has no way of knowing which of the many people by the same name is in the photo. And your employer would have to have permission to access their photo galleries to even see your photos, and it wouldn't be definitively you. They would assume it was of course, but right now you do have the power to un-tag all photos of yourself which was your concern.
You're thinking the same people are involved on both sides. (I'm taking "free" at face value since you're making an economic point.) Lots of people volunteer their code for the public good. Lots of other people are employed by companies which make money selling support for the free software. These people don't always have the same opinions. Even if they all think software should be free, they managed to get a job working on free software for money. The best of both worlds.
I think software should be free, and help out on free software, but I get paid to do proprietary stuff at work. If someone wants a database or website, I will charge for my time. But I keep running into bugs in proprietary software that I wish I could fix, so I write open-source versions of it or more typically I hack the bug fix by disassembling and patching.
If I release something open-source, it's my decision what to work on. If you want to decide, you pay for the privilige of deciding. But lots of other people will happily work on feature requests and enhancements for free, and they are not the ones with cognitive dissonance. If my software were more popular I might feel a change would benefit many people, but like most free software very few people use it, so I don't care.
Sometimes both the code and product are free but support costs money.
Sometimes the code is free to download but the compiled version contains trademark or other branding, like CentOS and RedHat.
Sometimes you can buy installation CDs but you can also download and build the code yourself.
Some companies take software they didn't write and put it together in a target way, like Music-centric linux (Ubuntu studio style), or Real-time linux, or whatever else.
Björk, Nine Inch Nails, Public Enemy, Stardust, and in a limited fashion Erasure, have given away parts of the music and allowed fans to re-mix the music. so yes you can give away unmixed tracks, it's been done. The discussion is about music, the article is about music... bringing movies in just makes it more complicated. Animated movies as the other poster said are certainly possible but could require huge piles of data (all fo the models, the environments, the animation and rendering software).
Free software doesn't have just one revenue stream, there are numerous different ways to get money. The fundamental problem is that music does not require support. Most of the revenue streams either assume you're paying for physical media or support. With music, most people don't need the physical product since it's going on the iPod anyway. And they don't need support.
The entire point of the article was that open source software has many solutions, and free music has several options, but music still needs more options in order to be successful. It's not a solved problem, and the open-source model is only an inspiration. Jill Sobule is an example, but she's hardly the typical case. If you're the right person at the right time you can do that, but most people won't make it.
(yes I'm talking about the deserving garage-band people, not the attractive but unmusical pop tarts we have on the radio - they wouldn't make it without heavy AutoTune and would barely be able to scrape by on concerts - Ke$sha on SNL and the recent Black Eyed Peas on American Idol pretty much proved there are some things you just can't do live, but I'm editorializing now).
I was going to make essentially the same post as terjeber, maybe without the last line. I'll explain. Here's your opening paragraph.
I agree with terjeber that your opening equates all gamblers with alcoholics, at least the way you typed it. Not sure how you can read that any other way. If you assume: most gamblers are not addicted, and most gambling is done by addicts, because gambling addicts gamble more. Maybe you can equate the two under that theory, but a lot of addicts don't gamble, and there are piles of first-timers to Vegas every year. But without any other explanation, you conflated all gamblers with the subset of gambling addicts. You didn't even make a distinction between private and government business. You have a lead-in line, a single sentence, and a new paragraph, end of thought.
The second paragraph really doesn't follow based on your opening. If you don't like handing alcoholics a beer, keeping in mind that you did not specify government or not, then you shouldn't like letting gambling addicts gamble. But you say that private companies are fine. So you're also fine with private companies handing beer to an alcoholic? But you didn't specify that. So now either you think all gamblers are addicts, or that enabling is fine as long as it's a private entity, and it's not clear. Hopefully you can see now why people might misunderstand your comment. Your second paragraph:
The government doesn't run lotteries to prey on gambling addicts, it runs lotteries to generate revenue. If a side effect of lotteries is that gambling addicts spend too much money, and the lotteries are shut down, will that stop addicts? No, but it will make you feel better about your government. That's a valid opinion, but not one state lottery is intended to prey on gambling addicts. It's intended to prey on people who are bad at probability. Like every other tax and fee out there, it takes small amounts of money into a pool, takes a bit of the top, and gives the rest to the people. In the case of a lottery it's one person at a time, or a very small group of people.
Now, if the two paragraphs are related, it's a tenuous link, and hopefully you can see that now.
While I'm here, drunk driving campaigns aren't an especially good way to get people to stop drinking and driving. It helps, but there are lots of people who believe drinking is a part of social life, and to get to that social life they have to drive. So you drive home drunk because you don't want to leave your car. A far better way to decrease drunk driving is to provide clean, safe, cheap public transportation so that people can get to the heart of the city where all of the night life is, and back out to the suburbs, without even getting behind the wheel.
"You are the pimp" actually doesn't even make sense in that context, because you're talking about gambling and addiction and then switch to prostitution which is usually, when a pimp is involved, coerced or flat-out slave labor. So you're kinda all over the map.
And I'll just tack on a little bit of confusion here - "the government" doesn't exist. Yeah I said it, it doesn't. Look it up. Either you have the state government, which runs lotteries and either licenses or sells alcohol depending on your state, or you have the federal government which runs the military. Your state government did not propose legalizing online gambling, the federa