lets see.... music company wants to catch Filesharers on a particular ISP, they hire a contractor(which is also a wholy owned subsidiary) to track down the pirates at a cost of a hundred thousand pounds a day. They then drag it out to a month.
The copyright owners claim it cost them 3 million to track down the handful of filsharers they find. hand over a bill for 750,000 to the ISP for their 25% bill. Content companies pay their 2,250,000 bill to their subsidiary. Content companies collect 2,999,000 in dividends from their subsidiary.
so a little under 2 1/2 olympic swimming pools of high level waste per year to supply the entire world with enough power to support a western lifestyle. Which ain't half bad.
That's a bit more than my back of the envelope calculations(came out at a little over 1 olympic swimming pool) but then I just used the entire worlds current electricity requirements rather than assuming every human in the world raising their level of power use to the same as the average french citizen.
I only skimmed it but I can't find anything to say they determined the testosterone levels by anything other than age. Why they even talk about hormones I'm not sure, from my reading they just seem to be looking at age.
It's as if the author believed that as long as every time they talked about testosterone as long as they used the phrase "testosterone levels, proxied by age" then it made it correct. I counted varients on that phrase turning up 13 times in that paper.
Have I missed something or would that paper have been vastly vastly more accuratly named if they're called it "Deal or No Deal: Age and the Mergers and Acquisitions Game"
You mentioned earlier that the you are puzzled as to why so many people within the software industry itself want to do away with software patents followed by an unsupported dig at those obviously uninventive and uncreative people. how the answer isn't obvious to you boggles the mind but lets assume you've never made the slightest effort to understand the culture in the software industry nor made the slightest effort to understand the nature of writing software.
the culture was shaped in decades past by hordes of the kinds of people who are willing to sit on their own reading manuals all night long, this leads to a certain bias towards the little guy
1: Anyone can do it, that's one of the best things about software. if you have a working brain you can create useful software. Most of the time no factories are needed, no massive capital, just enough for a cheap laptop and cost of living for a few months. Patents being stupidly expensive to obtain are as such nothing but a barrier to entry to the small time programmer. I could live for a year on the cost of pushing through a handful of patents.
2: It's utterly impossible to avoid infringing on at least some patents if writing any large piece of software and unless you happen to have a legal department and millions of dollars there's no way to be sure. And I can never know for sure, if I create something useful and give it away free out of the goodness of my heart or sell it I could wake up to a lawsuit that could cost me everything I own. And there is absolutely nothing I can do to protect myself other than to not create useful things and not sell them or give them away.
Does the patent office offer any system where for a fee that wouldn't cripple a normal person working a normal job I can submit my code to be compared to existing patents and receive a list of all patents I'm infringing and also receive complete immunity from any claims from the owners of patents not listed? If it does I'll happily remove this complaint. If it does not why am I expected to be able to do what the patent office cannot do itself?
3: Programming attracts maths geeks to whom programming is merely an extension of mathematics, the mere idea that you can patent doing a certain type of calculation is absurd to them.
4: At the other end of the scale programming attracts artists (who can oddly overlap with the above) who view a piece of software like a piece of music, to them patenting a particular algorithm is as absurd as patenting writing a piece of music in 4½/4 time.
5: The software industry is distributed. In a centralized industry like auto-mobile manufacture where there's a handful of really big companies, expecting each one to have a legal department which can wade through the recent patents in related areas is somewhat reasonable. Expecting every developer in the world to keep track of every patent is absurd. Especially when they can get fined triple the amount for trying to do that kind of research themselves and failing. which effectively forces you to work for someone else if you're poor or hire a legal department if you're not.(which also fosters feelings that it's just corruption and lawyers making utterly useless and wasteful jobs for other lawyers)
and many many other reasons which other slash-doters will berate me for not including.
Your snide and insulting remark that the programmers who complain about software patents are the uninventive ones only displays your complete and utter ignorance of the issue.
Some of the best and brightest minds in the industry including Knuth http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no-patents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html (who quite literally wrote the book on algorithms) and John Carmack( Ask a gamer if you don't recognise the name, recently moved into rocket science after reaching the top of the field in graphics engine programming and getting bored) are opposed to patenting algorithms and software.
accused? you make it sound like there was some doubt that they did that.
When pricing a domain name for a friend I had to use a slightly altered domain name because after checking with the first registrar(godaddy in my first few tests) the domain would get locked in for (I think)72 hours so no other registrar could be used.
Essentially it locked people in to whatever service they checked the availability with first unless they were willing to arse around and wait for the registrars to unlock it.
It's shady as fuck and they seemed to have been forced to stop doing that since then.
that's a deeply weird hypothetical but i imagine that if that were the case people would just become even more abrupt and impulsive since after all those who are would breed far more.
Publishers are gradually changing to e-books anyway and they've never liked libraries, now they just have to make one of the terms of the license that you can't loan books.
you can bet part of the license will say that if the media becomes unusable or the publisher doesn't like your face the license is automatically terminated.
the latest piece of crap I've heard is that the process of copying in memory brings copyright into the frame so they can apply any restrictions they can dream of and you have no rights at all under any circumstances. yes, it's absurd.
But you really think that even ignoring the huge overlap, the US's shenanigans outweigh all those other countries combined by a factor of nearly 2.5? Clearly I'm the one turning a blind eye to the rest of the world, right?
Or maybe the US is just really bad at keeping things secret. I guess that's also possible...
And none of that addresses the fact that he admits to editing documents and videos for impact. It's basically impossible to do that without introducing some sort of bias.
some proofs are simple, sure, but look up busy beaver stuff to see some loooong proofs. In cs courses they tend to stick to the most short and sweet proofs simply because the long ones would be unintelligible to almost everyone.
Out of interest is any of that even vaguely effective or can documentation of a similar nature for similar hardware be found freely available in other countries and foreign textbooks?
I would prefer such a system to the current wikileaks approach of "Release it all and let God sort it out". It is irresponsible.
In an ideal world wikileaks would be almost worthless. unfortunately prying even public domain completely unclassified information out of government hands can be a monumental task - have a look at the CRS Reports, they're not even military or classified but it took wikileaks to get them out where normal americans can read them.
he has a point, document dumps can provide some useful information in aggregate but whistleblowing generally implies some selectivity. Leaking all reports involving civilian deaths, torture or corruption would be whistlblowing, just leaking all documents is a bit too unsubtle to be called whistleblowing.
Although all CRS reports are legally in the public domain, they are quasi-secret because the CRS, as a matter of policy, makes the reports available only to members of Congress, Congressional committees and select sister agencies such as the GAO.
Members of Congress are free to selectively release CRS reports to the public but are only motivated to do so when they feel the results would assist them politically. Universally embarrassing reports are kept quiet.
personally I'd consider that pile of documents to be an unambiguously positive thing for normal americans. Releasing them was not an anti-american thing to do and it accounts for the majority of the US documents. After all, you paid for the research to be done, you should get to see it even if it embarrasses some politicians.
Most of the remainder is accounted for in 2 or 3 large document leaks about the iraq war. for example 1500 in one large leak.
So no. wikileaks isn't picking on the US in particular just because the number is big and you were too lazy to drill down and see why the number was so large. The US is somewhat overrepresented but then the US has a large population, leaking documents is respected to a certain extent and when it comes down to it the US is the richest and most powerful nation out there so there's going to be more to leak anyway.
"and many men need to pick up their share of the housework and stop killing their wives and former girlfriends. "
I'll be sure to kill my girlfriend less and continue as the primary housekeeper then. It might be hard though, with the rampant testosterone surging through my veins and the eternal urges to show everyone my shit and the pressure to piss all over the place.
"that some stereotypes are not based in fact, but are used to attack women, and other stereotypes reflect reality"
Yes, we've already covered this, if you and your friends believe them then they obviously ones which reflect reality, if you don't then they're not and are utterly unacceptable.
"I'm not saying that in anger, just pointing out that you might want to re-read what I actually wrote. I was pointing out that there are still plenty of people who are not ashamed to call a woman "it" if she's got a transsexual past. Not Carlin. I would be astounded and disappointed to learn that he ever did such a thing. "
Then it has absolutely nothing to do with a carlin quote and as such is nothing more than conflating the issue with your own unrelated problems with the world.
"As a signature line, it's making a statement - and not a healthy one. "
as a signature it's making a joke, like any other.
whenever someone gets offended over something idiotic there's always one trivial little difference from every other case in the world that means in this case, this case it's utterly different and their long-winded complaints are more than just ranting about trivialities.
Don't know about the GP but we just keep a stack of rolls in the box next to the toilet and have no dispenser. I've never even heard of that little piece of sexism the GP apparently seems to think is a widespread stereotype.
Where does the GP keep hers? down 3 flights of stairs at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused storage room with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard"?
Slashdot Mirror
lets see.... music company wants to catch Filesharers on a particular ISP, they hire a contractor(which is also a wholy owned subsidiary) to track down the pirates at a cost of a hundred thousand pounds a day.
They then drag it out to a month.
The copyright owners claim it cost them 3 million to track down the handful of filsharers they find.
hand over a bill for 750,000 to the ISP for their 25% bill.
Content companies pay their 2,250,000 bill to their subsidiary.
Content companies collect 2,999,000 in dividends from their subsidiary.
Sound about right?
1 olympic swimming pool:2,500 m3
417578/70 = 5965.4 m3 per year.
so a little under 2 1/2 olympic swimming pools of high level waste per year to supply the entire world with enough power to support a western lifestyle.
Which ain't half bad.
That's a bit more than my back of the envelope calculations(came out at a little over 1 olympic swimming pool) but then I just used the entire worlds current electricity requirements rather than assuming every human in the world raising their level of power use to the same as the average french citizen.
I think this is the research paper in question:
http://finance.sauder.ubc.ca/~kaili/llz_MS.pdf
I only skimmed it but I can't find anything to say they determined the testosterone levels by anything other than age.
Why they even talk about hormones I'm not sure, from my reading they just seem to be looking at age.
It's as if the author believed that as long as every time they talked about testosterone as long as they used the phrase "testosterone levels, proxied by age" then it made it correct.
I counted varients on that phrase turning up 13 times in that paper.
Have I missed something or would that paper have been vastly vastly more accuratly named if they're called it "Deal or No Deal: Age and the Mergers and Acquisitions Game"
It is however vastly slower to use and unless it's a very large book, far more limited.
"and some of them whose native language isn't English also want to use electronic dictionaries."
Unless it's a test on english language ability electronic dictionaries are perfectly fair.
You mentioned earlier that the you are puzzled as to why so many people within the software industry itself want to do away with software patents followed by an unsupported dig at those obviously uninventive and uncreative people.
how the answer isn't obvious to you boggles the mind but lets assume you've never made the slightest effort to understand the culture in the software industry nor made the slightest effort to understand the nature of writing software.
the culture was shaped in decades past by hordes of the kinds of people who are willing to sit on their own reading manuals all night long, this leads to a certain bias towards the little guy
1:
Anyone can do it, that's one of the best things about software.
if you have a working brain you can create useful software.
Most of the time no factories are needed, no massive capital, just enough for a cheap laptop and cost of living for a few months.
Patents being stupidly expensive to obtain are as such nothing but a barrier to entry to the small time programmer.
I could live for a year on the cost of pushing through a handful of patents.
2:
It's utterly impossible to avoid infringing on at least some patents if writing any large piece of software and unless you happen to have a legal department and millions of dollars there's no way to be sure.
And I can never know for sure, if I create something useful and give it away free out of the goodness of my heart or sell it I could wake up to a lawsuit that could cost me everything I own.
And there is absolutely nothing I can do to protect myself other than to not create useful things and not sell them or give them away.
Does the patent office offer any system where for a fee that wouldn't cripple a normal person working a normal job I can submit my code to be compared to existing patents and receive a list of all patents I'm infringing and also receive complete immunity from any claims from the owners of patents not listed?
If it does I'll happily remove this complaint.
If it does not why am I expected to be able to do what the patent office cannot do itself?
3:
Programming attracts maths geeks to whom programming is merely an extension of mathematics, the mere idea that you can patent doing a certain type of calculation is absurd to them.
4:
At the other end of the scale programming attracts artists (who can oddly overlap with the above) who view a piece of software like a piece of music, to them patenting a particular algorithm is as absurd as patenting writing a piece of music in 4½/4 time.
5:
The software industry is distributed.
In a centralized industry like auto-mobile manufacture where there's a handful of really big companies, expecting each one to have a legal department which can wade through the recent patents in related areas is somewhat reasonable.
Expecting every developer in the world to keep track of every patent is absurd.
Especially when they can get fined triple the amount for trying to do that kind of research themselves and failing.
which effectively forces you to work for someone else if you're poor or hire a legal department if you're not.(which also fosters feelings that it's just corruption and lawyers making utterly useless and wasteful jobs for other lawyers)
and many many other reasons which other slash-doters will berate me for not including.
Your snide and insulting remark that the programmers who complain about software patents are the uninventive ones only displays your complete and utter ignorance of the issue.
Some of the best and brightest minds in the industry including Knuth http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting1999/atti/no-patents/brevetti/docs/knuth_letter_en.html (who quite literally wrote the book on algorithms) and John Carmack( Ask a gamer if you don't recognise the name, recently moved into rocket science after reaching the top of the field in graphics engine programming and getting bored) are opposed to patenting algorithms and software.
accused?
you make it sound like there was some doubt that they did that.
When pricing a domain name for a friend I had to use a slightly altered domain name because after checking with the first registrar(godaddy in my first few tests) the domain would get locked in for (I think)72 hours so no other registrar could be used.
Essentially it locked people in to whatever service they checked the availability with first unless they were willing to arse around and wait for the registrars to unlock it.
It's shady as fuck and they seemed to have been forced to stop doing that since then.
that's a deeply weird hypothetical but i imagine that if that were the case people would just become even more abrupt and impulsive since after all those who are would breed far more.
Oh I wasn't looking for a reference, merely a yes/no to weather the same information is available freely in the rest of the world, is that banned too?
I'll miss libraries when they're gone. :(
Publishers are gradually changing to e-books anyway and they've never liked libraries, now they just have to make one of the terms of the license that you can't loan books.
not their problem, as long as you're not selling it second hand or otherwise transferring it to someone they don't give a shit.
you can bet part of the license will say that if the media becomes unusable or the publisher doesn't like your face the license is automatically terminated.
the latest piece of crap I've heard is that the process of copying in memory brings copyright into the frame so they can apply any restrictions they can dream of and you have no rights at all under any circumstances.
yes, it's absurd.
Bullshit
But you really think that even ignoring the huge overlap, the US's shenanigans outweigh all those other countries combined by a factor of nearly 2.5? Clearly I'm the one turning a blind eye to the rest of the world, right?
Or maybe the US is just really bad at keeping things secret. I guess that's also possible...
And none of that addresses the fact that he admits to editing documents and videos for impact. It's basically impossible to do that without introducing some sort of bias.
that's exactly what you implied.
yes, they said it and until now it was nothing more that a load of bullshit, this ruling makes it so.
you no longer own your music collection.
some proofs are simple, sure, but look up busy beaver stuff to see some loooong proofs.
In cs courses they tend to stick to the most short and sweet proofs simply because the long ones would be unintelligible to almost everyone.
If he was really interesting in making it accurate then he'd allow the public to see the revised paper and attempt to pick holes in it again.
unless of course he just cares more about not being proved wrong than being right.
Out of interest is any of that even vaguely effective or can documentation of a similar nature for similar hardware be found freely available in other countries and foreign textbooks?
They'd just argue that the court doesn't have the required clearance to read the documents to decide if they've been overclassified.
I would prefer such a system to the current wikileaks approach of "Release it all and let God sort it out". It is irresponsible.
In an ideal world wikileaks would be almost worthless.
unfortunately prying even public domain completely unclassified information out of government hands can be a monumental task - have a look at the CRS Reports, they're not even military or classified but it took wikileaks to get them out where normal americans can read them.
he has a point, document dumps can provide some useful information in aggregate but whistleblowing generally implies some selectivity.
Leaking all reports involving civilian deaths, torture or corruption would be whistlblowing, just leaking all documents is a bit too unsubtle to be called whistleblowing.
It could also be the fact that wikileaks and wikileaks philosophy is far more popular in the US.
You assume that all those leaks are things which are bad for the US.
6,717 of the 9,719 documents under the US are in fact from the Congressional Research Service
Read this:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service
Although all CRS reports are legally in the public domain, they are quasi-secret because the CRS, as a matter of policy, makes the reports available only to members of Congress, Congressional committees and select sister agencies such as the GAO.
Members of Congress are free to selectively release CRS reports to the public but are only motivated to do so when they feel the results would assist them politically. Universally embarrassing reports are kept quiet.
personally I'd consider that pile of documents to be an unambiguously positive thing for normal americans.
Releasing them was not an anti-american thing to do and it accounts for the majority of the US documents.
After all, you paid for the research to be done, you should get to see it even if it embarrasses some politicians.
Most of the remainder is accounted for in 2 or 3 large document leaks about the iraq war.
for example 1500 in one large leak.
So no.
wikileaks isn't picking on the US in particular just because the number is big and you were too lazy to drill down and see why the number was so large.
The US is somewhat overrepresented but then the US has a large population, leaking documents is respected to a certain extent and when it comes down to it the US is the richest and most powerful nation out there so there's going to be more to leak anyway.
"and many men need to pick up their share of the housework and stop killing their wives and former girlfriends. "
I'll be sure to kill my girlfriend less and continue as the primary housekeeper then.
It might be hard though, with the rampant testosterone surging through my veins and the eternal urges to show everyone my shit and the pressure to piss all over the place.
"that some stereotypes are not based in fact, but are used to attack women, and other stereotypes reflect reality"
Yes, we've already covered this, if you and your friends believe them then they obviously ones which reflect reality, if you don't then they're not and are utterly unacceptable.
"I'm not saying that in anger, just pointing out that you might want to re-read what I actually wrote. I was pointing out that there are still plenty of people who are not ashamed to call a woman "it" if she's got a transsexual past. Not Carlin. I would be astounded and disappointed to learn that he ever did such a thing. "
Then it has absolutely nothing to do with a carlin quote and as such is nothing more than conflating the issue with your own unrelated problems with the world.
"As a signature line, it's making a statement - and not a healthy one. "
as a signature it's making a joke, like any other.
whenever someone gets offended over something idiotic there's always one trivial little difference from every other case in the world that means in this case, this case it's utterly different and their long-winded complaints are more than just ranting about trivialities.
Don't know about the GP but we just keep a stack of rolls in the box next to the toilet and have no dispenser.
I've never even heard of that little piece of sexism the GP apparently seems to think is a widespread stereotype.
Where does the GP keep hers?
down 3 flights of stairs at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused storage room with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard"?