If you read both HP and the Ender's Game series, you'll notice a lot of similarities between these two examples of juvenile literature. If they can give the HUGO to Card, they can give it to Rowling.
Every game that is possible has been played before.
Chess is a finite game, but I think you're underestimating how big that finite area of 64 squares really is.
A sufficiently powerful computer will always beat a human opponent, but creativity is important for the human if he is to have a chance. As I understand it, great human chess players don't play like computers, they play like great human chess players.
I won't argue that net voting is ready yet, but I don't think it really aggravates any of the problems you outline. Husbands can already intimidate their wives; employers can intimidate their employees; and the poor already vote less than the wealthy, despite efforts of candidates to bus low-income voters to the polls.
Don't confuse technology issues with existing voting problems.
I know. It used to render fine, then freeservers changed something and Ive never bothered to find a new (free) host. The site is very simple except for the freeservers stuff.
I think the problematic area of the quote comes in the implied subject of the second half.
When I give food to the poor I am called a saint, when I ask why [you let them] go hungry I am called a communist
It's a marvelous quote. And I'm sure the good Bishop would never approve of the rewrite, but the orginal quote implies -- and I think is meant to imply -- that you, the well-fed, are the reason they go hungry, and that you could change it.
Hunger on this planet is shameful: there is too much wealth, too much that could be done. But people don't like to be challenged in this way.
That's strange. I'm using Nutscrape Communicator 4.76 under FreeBSD and I didn't have any problems at all.
It doesn't matter. There are a lot of great chairs on the market. Don't sit on a folding chair all day and then wonder why your back hurts. And if you work in an office, make some noise if you have a crap chair. The company I work for just outfitted their new facility with mid-line ($750) Herman-Miller chairs. I wouldn't buy one for my home office, but they're nice.
The only real hope for Opennap server operators is that there's enough of them out there to discourage the recording goons from suing them all.
I think you're underestimating the number of lawyers employed by record companies. My guess is that at any one time, there are more lawyers than there are Opennap server operators.
Plus, it's very easy to fire off cease and desist letters to the various operators. That should take care of some of them. Take the big ones to court after that and make sure NBC (and NBCi and MSNBC) all cover the story. Soon, it's just too much of a pain to operate one of these things. They can't play whack-a-mole forever, but if they cover most of it, they've won.
Don't forget that Napster is taking so long becasue it's never been done before. Once the legal precedent is set, it's just a matter of going through the motions. And they have proved that they are willing to spend whatever dollars it takes to protect their copyright and buy new laws (DMCA) that protect it even more.
If you would like to avoid the ad hominem accusation, start your sentence with something other than "The man whose arguments I'm attacking is...". Whatever comes after this will be an ad hominem attack. Try this instead:
Stallman argues for freedom, but beneath these red, white, and blue calls for justice, is a more insidious cry for software communism. He has repeatedly stated that "Free" software can not -- and should not -- coexist with proprietary software. His goal is for all software, and all code, to exist in a limitless pool with no boundaries. His message is clear and unflinching. Is it a nightmare or a dream? In Stallman's world, code will be free, but if we are required to give up our right to create proprietary software, then only the code -- and not the coder -- will be free.
Your reply is bogus. Gekko didn't describe valuable information as a commodity, but information as a valuable commodity.
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: commodity
Pronunciation: k&-'mä-d&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English commoditee, from Middle French commodité, from Latin commoditat-, commoditas, from commodus
Date: 15th century
1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment c : a mass-produced unspecialized product
2 a : something useful or valued b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE
3 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT
4 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market
I think the last definition is what the character most likely intended.
Would you pay for content if the infrastructure was secure, inexpensive, and allowed the content to prosper?
The content would have to get a lot better. Would you pay for Salon.com or Wired.com? I read parts of these sites every day, but I wouldn't pay anything for them. The content just isn't good enough. What about OldManMurray.com (IMHO the best site on the internet)? They would have to actually update more than once a month.
The business model isn't invalid, it just can't support massive amounts of waste. Remember reading about the indoor slides between floors at Excite? How cool! I wonder why they don't have those kind of things at Random House? Because Random House is evil, dammit! They don't care about our freedom and personal amusement, they just want to make money.
Which is, of course, what all businesses are required to do.
I don't think there was anything new done with technology during the XFL broadcasts, just more. Imagine a print journalist saying: "After the game, I promise to interview every starting player and I'll print the full results on the internet and then in the paper." How is this different than a print journalist interviewing every starting player then giving us the interesting parts in excerpted form? Not different, just more.
At least Katz isn't claiming it was an interactive broadcast, like he did with last year's Academay Awards.
Even more importantly, there is no project. Card has a successful book and a screenplay. Woohoo! All he needs now is studio backing. Gosh, how hard could that be? After all, Jake Lloyd(!) has expressed an interest, studio money should be right on the heels of that!
The reality is that as much as people love this book, and as fun as it might be to see this movie, Card is no closer to seeing this on film than he was 20 (or 30) years ago.
Serious question: I'm a bit of a history buff, and I'd like to read a balanced history of labor unions in America -- any suggestions?
I don't want something called Freedom Fighters: How the American Worker was Saved but rather a balanced history. I've never come across anything that looked particularly well done.
. In our zeal to keep America free of radioactivity,
really, damn frivolous people, wanting to avoid radiation... and toxic waste...
I didn't mean for my comment to be facetious. In this case, the zeal is justified.
there is far more at stake here than financial issues.
Yes, you're right. My point was only that America being the America that it is, private companies build (or choose not to build) nuclear power plants under the scrutiny and regulation of the Federal Government. The reason that there are currently no plans to build another nuclear reactor in America is because it is financially more risky than building a coal plant.
I happen to be pro-nuclear energy, but in this case, the arguments are irrelevant. Given the energy market, and the regulatory conditions, it does not make financial sense for an American power company to build a nuclear reactor.
You are, of course, correct that safety issues persist for the life of the plant, not just during construction. That's the reason why the government will refuse to let a plant go online if there are problems while it is being built. This is a good thing. Regulation prevents accidents before they happen. For a market-drivien, publicly held power company, why take the risk? Build a nice stinky coal plant and be done with it.
CNN is headquartered in none other than Conservative Atlanta, Georgia, hardly liberal.
Georgia has a democratic governor and the Mayor of Atlanta has sued gun manufacturers for liability in the death of children shot by the weapons they made. Atlanta and the State of Georgia, are hardly some kind of liberal-free zone. CNN is a liberal news agency. Its creator, Ted Turner, is a liberal.
It's up to you to decide if the word liberal has negative connotations.
The problem with nuclear in America is the Federal Government. In our zeal to keep America free of radioactivity, the Federal Government has made building nuclear reactors extremely expensive. Also, due to the safety regulations, it's a risky proposition, financially. If safety problems are found, construction can be halted, the plant doesn't go online, and a lot of private investors lose money. Private investors don't like the risk of losing money unless there's a great upside potential, so they go with a stinky old coal plant, built on the broken backs and black lungs of W. Virginia.
I don't think Canada has this problem. Reactors are built by the government, so the only financial risk is to the taxpayaers. Government investors don't mind losing money, they can always print more.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read both HP and the Ender's Game series, you'll notice a lot of similarities between these two examples of juvenile literature. If they can give the HUGO to Card, they can give it to Rowling.
This is a good poing, but you ruin it with:
Every game that is possible has been played before.
Chess is a finite game, but I think you're underestimating how big that finite area of 64 squares really is.
A sufficiently powerful computer will always beat a human opponent, but creativity is important for the human if he is to have a chance. As I understand it, great human chess players don't play like computers, they play like great human chess players.
Don't confuse technology issues with existing voting problems.
I know. It used to render fine, then freeservers changed something and Ive never bothered to find a new (free) host. The site is very simple except for the freeservers stuff.
I have. Now if I could only get a link off the /. front page, I could finally leave this code-monkey crap behind.
If they are a publicly traded company, then they are legally obligated to maximize profit. Yes, even at the expense of your wife and children.
When I give food to the poor I am called a saint, when I ask why [you let them] go hungry I am called a communist
It's a marvelous quote. And I'm sure the good Bishop would never approve of the rewrite, but the orginal quote implies -- and I think is meant to imply -- that you, the well-fed, are the reason they go hungry, and that you could change it.
Hunger on this planet is shameful: there is too much wealth, too much that could be done. But people don't like to be challenged in this way.
The iMac was the loudest computer I ever used. I loved it, but it had an annoying noise.
It doesn't matter. There are a lot of great chairs on the market. Don't sit on a folding chair all day and then wonder why your back hurts. And if you work in an office, make some noise if you have a crap chair. The company I work for just outfitted their new facility with mid-line ($750) Herman-Miller chairs. I wouldn't buy one for my home office, but they're nice.
Excercise, get a good chair, and spend less time hunched over a keyboard and monitor coding.
Do you think the plethora of distributions hurts Linux as a whole? And do you view alternate distributions as competitors?
Bob, since you are England this week, what can you do to guarantee the sovereignty of Sealand?
I think you're underestimating the number of lawyers employed by record companies. My guess is that at any one time, there are more lawyers than there are Opennap server operators.
Plus, it's very easy to fire off cease and desist letters to the various operators. That should take care of some of them. Take the big ones to court after that and make sure NBC (and NBCi and MSNBC) all cover the story. Soon, it's just too much of a pain to operate one of these things. They can't play whack-a-mole forever, but if they cover most of it, they've won.
Don't forget that Napster is taking so long becasue it's never been done before. Once the legal precedent is set, it's just a matter of going through the motions. And they have proved that they are willing to spend whatever dollars it takes to protect their copyright and buy new laws (DMCA) that protect it even more.
I don't know why you would say this is ad hominem
Richard Stallman is a...
If you would like to avoid the ad hominem accusation, start your sentence with something other than "The man whose arguments I'm attacking is...". Whatever comes after this will be an ad hominem attack. Try this instead:
Your reply is bogus. Gekko didn't describe valuable information as a commodity, but information as a valuable commodity.
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: commodity
Pronunciation: k&-'mä-d&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English commoditee, from Middle French commodité, from Latin commoditat-, commoditas, from commodus
Date: 15th century
1 : an economic good: as a : a product of agriculture or mining b : an article of commerce especially when delivered for shipment c : a mass-produced unspecialized product
2 a : something useful or valued b : CONVENIENCE, ADVANTAGE
3 obsolete : QUANTITY, LOT
4 : one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market
I think the last definition is what the character most likely intended.
The content would have to get a lot better. Would you pay for Salon.com or Wired.com? I read parts of these sites every day, but I wouldn't pay anything for them. The content just isn't good enough. What about OldManMurray.com (IMHO the best site on the internet)? They would have to actually update more than once a month.
The business model isn't invalid, it just can't support massive amounts of waste. Remember reading about the indoor slides between floors at Excite? How cool! I wonder why they don't have those kind of things at Random House? Because Random House is evil, dammit! They don't care about our freedom and personal amusement, they just want to make money.
Which is, of course, what all businesses are required to do.
At least Katz isn't claiming it was an interactive broadcast, like he did with last year's Academay Awards.
Even more importantly, there is no project. Card has a successful book and a screenplay. Woohoo! All he needs now is studio backing. Gosh, how hard could that be? After all, Jake Lloyd(!) has expressed an interest, studio money should be right on the heels of that!
The reality is that as much as people love this book, and as fun as it might be to see this movie, Card is no closer to seeing this on film than he was 20 (or 30) years ago.
Serious question: I'm a bit of a history buff, and I'd like to read a balanced history of labor unions in America -- any suggestions?
I don't want something called Freedom Fighters: How the American Worker was Saved but rather a balanced history. I've never come across anything that looked particularly well done.
I think it's great that Jon can admit to this. Wait... wrong article. I guess Jon is still not smart enough to realize he doesn't know it all.
IHBT
really, damn frivolous people, wanting to avoid radiation... and toxic waste...
I didn't mean for my comment to be facetious. In this case, the zeal is justified.
there is far more at stake here than financial issues.
Yes, you're right. My point was only that America being the America that it is, private companies build (or choose not to build) nuclear power plants under the scrutiny and regulation of the Federal Government. The reason that there are currently no plans to build another nuclear reactor in America is because it is financially more risky than building a coal plant.
I happen to be pro-nuclear energy, but in this case, the arguments are irrelevant. Given the energy market, and the regulatory conditions, it does not make financial sense for an American power company to build a nuclear reactor.
You are, of course, correct that safety issues persist for the life of the plant, not just during construction. That's the reason why the government will refuse to let a plant go online if there are problems while it is being built. This is a good thing. Regulation prevents accidents before they happen. For a market-drivien, publicly held power company, why take the risk? Build a nice stinky coal plant and be done with it.
Georgia has a democratic governor and the Mayor of Atlanta has sued gun manufacturers for liability in the death of children shot by the weapons they made. Atlanta and the State of Georgia, are hardly some kind of liberal-free zone. CNN is a liberal news agency. Its creator, Ted Turner, is a liberal.
It's up to you to decide if the word liberal has negative connotations.
I don't think British Columbia is polluting the entire planet. Even if everyone in BC owned their own smog factory, it wouldn't amount to much.
I don't think Canada has this problem. Reactors are built by the government, so the only financial risk is to the taxpayaers. Government investors don't mind losing money, they can always print more.
I think the subject says it all. Modded down because of his choice of editor.