Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.
I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
That is the worst example of logic I've seen in a long time.
So, effectively, you're saying this entire article is BS.
Assume the answer is true. The poster feels that the article is factually inaccurate.
Which I assume means that you believe that the actual granting, defence, and enforcement of patents can only be good, regardless of the situation, whats be patented, whos patenting it.
Okay, so, because the article isn't accurate, somehow, you managed to turn that into all patents are good? I personally think the article is crap, but I too believe that much needs to be changed in the current system. Puzzle that out...
Not in all cases. There are cases (such as the patent application that I just recently participated in submitting) in which, the concept has been around, but there are a number of pieces that are novel and non-obvious (until you hear about it).
A friend and I started a company with this idea and very, VERY little cash. We don't have the money to compete with major ad firms that could take this business away in seconds flat without our patent.
I'm seeing TONS of posts saying "patents are bad" and "take away patents", but lets remember who else they help. Small businesses without the capital to protect themselves from large businesses that would rip off their novel idea. Are there problems with the patent process, definitely. But it's better than nothing.
There's a simple setting to defeat that, "Ask before installing third-party plug-ins." It is defaulted to on (meaning, it will ask) in a base install. If your co-worker turned that off, he deserves what he gets.
Pulling your head out of your ass would be more resonible[sic] then[sic] making up bullshit about how wonderful your alleged country is. Pray tell, what country are you from, and I'll find you an example from THAT country.
If you want examples from other countries, use google for christ's sake. That's what I did.
No, you don't live on Earth? Just for fun, when I read this post, I did quick searching on a handful (7 or 8) countries that aren't the US, finding examples of businesses using payola to get their way, and didn't fail on one country. I'd wager that there isn't one out there in which it does not happen. And, incidentally, when it actually IS eroding rights, it's not jumping off the deep end. Perhaps you think it is a JUSTIFIED erosion of rights, but the fact of the matter is, it is still erosion...
Ahh, welcome to the problem. My parents would have a problem with nudity of people under 18. Your line is at about 16 or 17. Perhaps my neighbor thinks 13 and up is fine, but under that is sick. Perhaps his neighbor says if there is hair, it's good. I'm willing to wager that my grandmother would be against nudity in general on the 'net.
Okay, which one of you gets to choose? You have essentially made our points. Censorship is a horrible way to go about regulating things. Child porn is bad, but lets not strip our civil liberties to "stop" it.
Are you insane? One year ago here in Michigan, an 18 year old boy took pictures of his 17 year old girlfriend naked while they were having sex. 17 is consentual age here in Michigan, and she did consent. The clerk at a K-Mart or whatever, knew the girl, knew her age, and called the cops. He was prosecuted. Does that sound like child porn to you?
A 20-something man in Illinois about 2 years ago was arrested when DRAWINGS, anime-style, in a notebook that depicted child-like figures engaged in various manners of intercourse, were found at work. He was proscuted not for sexual harrassment, but for something like 12 counts of child porn, for the 12 different drawings, 3 of which included no "nudity" or "sex", but were suggestive.
A very special amp? Are you on crack? Try making a cone out of a piece of paper, taping a needle to it, and placing said needle in the groove on an LP (preferably one you don't want anymore). You get music, although it is both tinny and quiet. I don't know how my "special" paper amp was able to decode those nifty logarithms, but damn, that paper rocks...
Humans cost a lot more $$ than a phone system. Unfortunately that seems to be the bottom line.
Not necessarily true. Much of that depends on your industry. I worked for the #2 laser manufacturer in the world (at the time, who knows now), and in the course of 3 years we added a nifty call center solution with all of those touch tone menus, then went back to live callers and an operator. People would far rather speak to a human and ensure that they're in the right place then wait on hold for 15 minutes than speak to a computer and wait for 2 minutes, then another 2 elsewhere, then 10 elsewhere, etc.
In the long run, in increased business and maintenance costs, it was LESS expensive by a HUGE margin to just employ some operators. That's also the case in the firm I'm at now.
The difference is, no one factors in the business aspect of it...
Am I Related or Not? Am I A Good Page or Not? Am I Useful or Not?
Wait, I have a real problem using the same method to rate webpages as breasts.
Re:Good to know I'm not the only one...
on
Sen To, X-Men 2
·
· Score: 1
Actually, again, I have to say that you've happily skipped over the point and moved on to base the discussion on a arguement that you have posed, not I. It's easy to argue, if you ignore what the other side says and simply spout off propaganda. The fact of the matter is, it is notoriously difficult to get all of the dietary requirements of life without meat. Yes, it can be done, but it requires going out of one's way and being EXTREMELY careful with one's diet.
That doesn't sound all that "natural" to me. That's natural for PEOPLE. You cite what's natural for ANIMALS, and use that as a rationale for child rape and murder. A sad way to argue. At any rate, it's obvious that you have little rationale for your statements, so it's not worth arguing with you any more. You win the argument, enjoy...
Re:Good to know I'm not the only one...
on
Sen To, X-Men 2
·
· Score: 1
You too huh? I thought I was the only one.
Amusing, you compare rabid vegetarianism to pedophilia and child murder. Are you trying to be ignorant, or do you really see some parallel there? What a psychotic jackass... you need help...
Re:Good to know I'm not the only one...
on
Sen To, X-Men 2
·
· Score: 1
Bire me you food nazi... Beef just tastes good.
Is it just me, or is the world becoming a truly shitty place to live with all of these fascist fucks out there trying to destroy everyone's good time. No smoking, it's bad. No meat, it's mean and inefficient. No football, it's barbaric. No guns, it's dangerous. No camping, it hurts mother earth. SHUT UP HIPPIES!
If you believe in the bible and all of that jazz, we were given dominion over the earth, blah blah blah. If you don't, and instead believe in darwinism, etc, we are a part of nature, therefore ALL THAT WE BUILD IS PART OF NATURE you fucking schmucks. A beaver's dam is part of nature, as is the Hoover Dam. A wasp's house is part of nature, as is my monolithic eye-sore in the middle of a forest.
Nature is full of stuff that unfairly kills other stuff, suck it up junior, and quityerbitchin'.
Sorry, I'm just tired of hearing from the nazis every time anything enjoyable happens. Shut your piehole and have a burger.
>You said it's a home server; how many people need to send mail to the admin accounts anyway?
Millions. Well, okay, hundreds. Unfortunately, nearly every single one of them is about increasing my penis size or making money easy. Thanks for the advice, I guess there's no particular reason for me to leave them the same, so I'll change em.
I have a home version of the same actually. For any service on the net that requires an email address from me to sign in, I simply create a new one (for example, I'm slashdot@thelances.com for here, amazon at Amazon, etc). I set up these aliases to forward to my email box. If I get spam, I can immediately cut off the source address with one simple deletion, and, I know which company no longer gets my business... I can send them an email and let them know HOW I know, and why they've lost a customer.
So far, it's worked well. The only pain in the ass is postmaster, admin, webmaster, info, and other generic accounts that I have for my domain get more than enough spam to make up for it. What the hell do I do there, eh?
Face it, no matter how annoying some advertising is - it's impossible for any company to achieve a decent amount of success without it.
That's a bit simplistic. My company has a $0 advertising budget, and for the third consecutive year we grown at a rate exceeding 100% (yes, we have OVER doubled growth every year since the inception of the company). I know of a number of other companies that have done the same here in Detroit. It's not only possible, it happens frequently.
Ask yourself this: as annoyed as you might be, if you suddenly had a need for a tiny hidden camera... where would you go to buy it?
Surveillance Solutions (www.surveillancesolutions.com), which I heard about from someone else who used them.
That would call the quality of the surveying process into question, but not the survey itself. A few writeups we've been looking at indicate that, typically, there is no direct corrolation between age or sex and likelihood of accurate survey completion. There is a vague corrolation between tech-knowledge and accurate survey completion, but it's not particularly strong, and well within statistical bounds.
Basically, if they don't get a representative sample within reason, it's due to a poorly administered survey, not the seemingly arbitrary nature of their polling.
So the question arises, "What about the non-respondants?" That's true, the company doesn't have accurate information about them. But what's better, good information about a small group, or bad information about a large one?
That's so backwards though. There is a difference between a Survey and a Census. Asking every single person that comes to your site what they think is a Census. Yes, that's obviously the best way, but not the most cost effective.
A Survey is talking to a percentage of your user base, and extrapolating the data. If done properly, you can interview a random group of around 15% of your user base and be statistically 95% accurate. Thus far, it's the best we have, if you discount cheating and poor data collection practices.
My point is, if you do your survey correctly, if 40% of your respondents indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, it's safe to say that 40% of your user base also does, plus or minus a small percentage. That's the whole point of statistics.
My partner and my company does this for large corporations (a great deal in the automotive sector) and here's what we've found.
Frequently, the people that give input simply misread questions... for example 'How many males over the age of 18 in your household INCLUDING YOU' as opposed to 'NOT COUNTING YOURSELF'. Or they make typos. Error checking can fix that frequently. Saying that just because they mis-keyed their zip, the whole dataset is incorrect is not correct.
We've found that the most positive way to get good data is to get people that WANT to tell you their opinions to take the survey. Forcing someone to take the survey for free stuff or to take part in something just doesn't work. Giving them the free stuff then saying "Hey, would you like to give us your opinion" on the other hand, does. The only drawback is that you would assume you're tainting the respondent's opinion. Given the amount of research we've put in, we've actually found the opposite... people say "hey, I've already got my free shit, now I'll tell em how I REALLY feel". I don't see much of a purpose in what IBM has come up with.
Welfare gives you access to someone else's money (or more precisely, the services their money buys). Ditto charity.
Pedantic, but technically correct. Having a collection of money isn't a trait. Having the ability to get money is. You don't need the trait of having the ability to get money, as society will provide for you if you do not.
I'm confused. Are you saying only the socially graceful should be employed? I think being properly socialized will definitely improve one's ability to win the job interview. Please clarify, and I'll be happy to continue our debate.
Yes. It's a generalization, but so is this whole discussion, so I feel safe making it. That's just one of the things that social grace affects, but I thought a good example. Another example is that geeks still procreate:P
Well, "survival of the fittest" refers to the fittest species, not individual. I.e., a species better adapted to its environment is more likely to survive than one that is ill-suited. Is it this species/individual misapplication the reason you write "pseudo"? I guess I'm getting confused again.
Survival of the fittest, as Darwin explained it, was the fittest species. As we're using it in this discussion (most fit for survival), it would be the most fit individual with the best traits...hence the "pseudo-Darwinian"... it's Darwinian, but not REALLY...
especially a puzzle loaded with the gory surprise of a near-boiling liquid within
First, if you find the lid on a travel cup to be a "puzzle" you should have your ass kicked for the general principle of being a complete DUMBASS!
Second, there should be no surprise... COFFEE IS FUCKING HOT. Suprise, you're an idiot. The fact of the matter is, she opened hot coffee, spilled it, got hurt, and sued, wrongfully. If I pour a liquid that is supposed to be hot and IS hot on my lap... sucks to be me. I should probably refrain from using my lack of coordiation to open cups of coffee while driving anyway.
Very interesting information. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make, but it makes for an interesting read. Arguing sematics as to whether the word fittest or the phrase "most likely to survive" should be used is purely pedantic, and should be seen as such.
My understanding of fittest isn't the definition that implies physical prowess or health, but the definition that is actually implied... most likely to survive.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or having some tengential conversation that doesn't apply to what we're discussing.
I beg to differ. Money doesn't make you more likely to survive. We have welfare. Social grace doesn't make you more likely to survive. We have unemployment. Hence the lack of application of the pseudo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest".
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, the RIAA is more than welcome to launch all of the attacks on my system they wish to. I reserve the right to viciously retaliate with whatever is handy. If I have a CCW and some person takes a shot at me with a gun, so I pull mine and fire back... it doesn't matter that the person was an off duty cop, they didn't tell me, and they tried to kill me, self defense.
I suggest we all just prepare to have very fun "self defense" tools ready.
Not in all cases. There are cases (such as the patent application that I just recently participated in submitting) in which, the concept has been around, but there are a number of pieces that are novel and non-obvious (until you hear about it).
A friend and I started a company with this idea and very, VERY little cash. We don't have the money to compete with major ad firms that could take this business away in seconds flat without our patent.
I'm seeing TONS of posts saying "patents are bad" and "take away patents", but lets remember who else they help. Small businesses without the capital to protect themselves from large businesses that would rip off their novel idea. Are there problems with the patent process, definitely. But it's better than nothing.
There's a simple setting to defeat that, "Ask before installing third-party plug-ins." It is defaulted to on (meaning, it will ask) in a base install. If your co-worker turned that off, he deserves what he gets.
Pulling your head out of your ass would be more resonible[sic] then[sic] making up bullshit about how wonderful your alleged country is. Pray tell, what country are you from, and I'll find you an example from THAT country.
If you want examples from other countries, use google for christ's sake. That's what I did.
No, you don't live on Earth? Just for fun, when I read this post, I did quick searching on a handful (7 or 8) countries that aren't the US, finding examples of businesses using payola to get their way, and didn't fail on one country. I'd wager that there isn't one out there in which it does not happen. And, incidentally, when it actually IS eroding rights, it's not jumping off the deep end. Perhaps you think it is a JUSTIFIED erosion of rights, but the fact of the matter is, it is still erosion...
If you we don't violate your rights, then the terrorists have already won!
Ahh, welcome to the problem. My parents would have a problem with nudity of people under 18. Your line is at about 16 or 17. Perhaps my neighbor thinks 13 and up is fine, but under that is sick. Perhaps his neighbor says if there is hair, it's good. I'm willing to wager that my grandmother would be against nudity in general on the 'net.
Okay, which one of you gets to choose? You have essentially made our points. Censorship is a horrible way to go about regulating things. Child porn is bad, but lets not strip our civil liberties to "stop" it.
Are you insane? One year ago here in Michigan, an 18 year old boy took pictures of his 17 year old girlfriend naked while they were having sex. 17 is consentual age here in Michigan, and she did consent. The clerk at a K-Mart or whatever, knew the girl, knew her age, and called the cops. He was prosecuted. Does that sound like child porn to you?
A 20-something man in Illinois about 2 years ago was arrested when DRAWINGS, anime-style, in a notebook that depicted child-like figures engaged in various manners of intercourse, were found at work. He was proscuted not for sexual harrassment, but for something like 12 counts of child porn, for the 12 different drawings, 3 of which included no "nudity" or "sex", but were suggestive.
What do you mean that's not prosecuted?
A very special amp? Are you on crack? Try making a cone out of a piece of paper, taping a needle to it, and placing said needle in the groove on an LP (preferably one you don't want anymore). You get music, although it is both tinny and quiet. I don't know how my "special" paper amp was able to decode those nifty logarithms, but damn, that paper rocks...
Not necessarily true. Much of that depends on your industry. I worked for the #2 laser manufacturer in the world (at the time, who knows now), and in the course of 3 years we added a nifty call center solution with all of those touch tone menus, then went back to live callers and an operator. People would far rather speak to a human and ensure that they're in the right place then wait on hold for 15 minutes than speak to a computer and wait for 2 minutes, then another 2 elsewhere, then 10 elsewhere, etc.
In the long run, in increased business and maintenance costs, it was LESS expensive by a HUGE margin to just employ some operators. That's also the case in the firm I'm at now.
The difference is, no one factors in the business aspect of it...
Great idea, we just need a good name...
Am I Related or Not?
Am I A Good Page or Not?
Am I Useful or Not?
Wait, I have a real problem using the same method to rate webpages as breasts.
Actually, again, I have to say that you've happily skipped over the point and moved on to base the discussion on a arguement that you have posed, not I. It's easy to argue, if you ignore what the other side says and simply spout off propaganda. The fact of the matter is, it is notoriously difficult to get all of the dietary requirements of life without meat. Yes, it can be done, but it requires going out of one's way and being EXTREMELY careful with one's diet.
That doesn't sound all that "natural" to me. That's natural for PEOPLE. You cite what's natural for ANIMALS, and use that as a rationale for child rape and murder. A sad way to argue. At any rate, it's obvious that you have little rationale for your statements, so it's not worth arguing with you any more. You win the argument, enjoy...
You too huh? I thought I was the only one.
Amusing, you compare rabid vegetarianism to pedophilia and child murder. Are you trying to be ignorant, or do you really see some parallel there? What a psychotic jackass... you need help...
Bire me you food nazi... Beef just tastes good.
Is it just me, or is the world becoming a truly shitty place to live with all of these fascist fucks out there trying to destroy everyone's good time. No smoking, it's bad. No meat, it's mean and inefficient. No football, it's barbaric. No guns, it's dangerous. No camping, it hurts mother earth. SHUT UP HIPPIES!
If you believe in the bible and all of that jazz, we were given dominion over the earth, blah blah blah. If you don't, and instead believe in darwinism, etc, we are a part of nature, therefore ALL THAT WE BUILD IS PART OF NATURE you fucking schmucks. A beaver's dam is part of nature, as is the Hoover Dam. A wasp's house is part of nature, as is my monolithic eye-sore in the middle of a forest.
Nature is full of stuff that unfairly kills other stuff, suck it up junior, and quityerbitchin'.
Sorry, I'm just tired of hearing from the nazis every time anything enjoyable happens. Shut your piehole and have a burger.
>You said it's a home server; how many people need to send mail to the admin accounts anyway?
Millions. Well, okay, hundreds. Unfortunately, nearly every single one of them is about increasing my penis size or making money easy. Thanks for the advice, I guess there's no particular reason for me to leave them the same, so I'll change em.
I have a home version of the same actually. For any service on the net that requires an email address from me to sign in, I simply create a new one (for example, I'm slashdot@thelances.com for here, amazon at Amazon, etc). I set up these aliases to forward to my email box. If I get spam, I can immediately cut off the source address with one simple deletion, and, I know which company no longer gets my business... I can send them an email and let them know HOW I know, and why they've lost a customer.
So far, it's worked well. The only pain in the ass is postmaster, admin, webmaster, info, and other generic accounts that I have for my domain get more than enough spam to make up for it. What the hell do I do there, eh?
That's a bit simplistic. My company has a $0 advertising budget, and for the third consecutive year we grown at a rate exceeding 100% (yes, we have OVER doubled growth every year since the inception of the company). I know of a number of other companies that have done the same here in Detroit. It's not only possible, it happens frequently.
Surveillance Solutions (www.surveillancesolutions.com), which I heard about from someone else who used them.
That would call the quality of the surveying process into question, but not the survey itself. A few writeups we've been looking at indicate that, typically, there is no direct corrolation between age or sex and likelihood of accurate survey completion. There is a vague corrolation between tech-knowledge and accurate survey completion, but it's not particularly strong, and well within statistical bounds.
Basically, if they don't get a representative sample within reason, it's due to a poorly administered survey, not the seemingly arbitrary nature of their polling.
That's so backwards though. There is a difference between a Survey and a Census. Asking every single person that comes to your site what they think is a Census. Yes, that's obviously the best way, but not the most cost effective.
A Survey is talking to a percentage of your user base, and extrapolating the data. If done properly, you can interview a random group of around 15% of your user base and be statistically 95% accurate. Thus far, it's the best we have, if you discount cheating and poor data collection practices.
My point is, if you do your survey correctly, if 40% of your respondents indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, it's safe to say that 40% of your user base also does, plus or minus a small percentage. That's the whole point of statistics.
My partner and my company does this for large corporations (a great deal in the automotive sector) and here's what we've found.
Frequently, the people that give input simply misread questions... for example 'How many males over the age of 18 in your household INCLUDING YOU' as opposed to 'NOT COUNTING YOURSELF'. Or they make typos. Error checking can fix that frequently. Saying that just because they mis-keyed their zip, the whole dataset is incorrect is not correct.
We've found that the most positive way to get good data is to get people that WANT to tell you their opinions to take the survey. Forcing someone to take the survey for free stuff or to take part in something just doesn't work. Giving them the free stuff then saying "Hey, would you like to give us your opinion" on the other hand, does. The only drawback is that you would assume you're tainting the respondent's opinion. Given the amount of research we've put in, we've actually found the opposite... people say "hey, I've already got my free shit, now I'll tell em how I REALLY feel". I don't see much of a purpose in what IBM has come up with.
Second, there should be no surprise... COFFEE IS FUCKING HOT. Suprise, you're an idiot. The fact of the matter is, she opened hot coffee, spilled it, got hurt, and sued, wrongfully. If I pour a liquid that is supposed to be hot and IS hot on my lap... sucks to be me. I should probably refrain from using my lack of coordiation to open cups of coffee while driving anyway.
Very interesting information. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make, but it makes for an interesting read. Arguing sematics as to whether the word fittest or the phrase "most likely to survive" should be used is purely pedantic, and should be seen as such.
My understanding of fittest isn't the definition that implies physical prowess or health, but the definition that is actually implied... most likely to survive.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I can't tell if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or having some tengential conversation that doesn't apply to what we're discussing.
I beg to differ. Money doesn't make you more likely to survive. We have welfare. Social grace doesn't make you more likely to survive. We have unemployment. Hence the lack of application of the pseudo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest".