Whoever is in charge of the rulemaking proceeding changed the accepted formats to include txt (isn't this ascii?). See Cryptome.org, there is a notice put up on that site detailing the changes. (The deadline for comments was also changed, it originally was 2/10.)
Hm.. I'd be willing to lay whatever money you want that Katz has never laid eyes on you.. and if that's so, how's he supposed to know you're not a teenager -
With the option of the child seeing sites blocked non-porn sites with the librarian's approval.
or should that be "with the librarian's approval?"
It's a brilliant idea, it really is, but don't you think others have already given that one a shot? I think so. It doesn't address the real issue, which is that the librarian is put into an untenable position in terms of becoming a guardian and monitor, which it isn't supposed to be. To use others' arguments, are you then going to say that a child can't read Catcher in the Rye because it has the word fuck in it, or other books that cross the filter line?
The simplest option is best: keep the libraries as hands-off as possible, and parents should be more open with their children. Sexual things won't do them damage. Children, real children, pre-pubescent children, are not really interested in porn, actually they think it's funny more often than not. Adolescents are interested in porn, but they are going to be more resourceful in getting it, so the filters will be ineffectual. (Just going through the neighbor's garbage for pete's sake..) But by this point in a child's life the parents should have broached sexuality.
(By the way, you could substitute "life" for "tech" in your interesting musings.. Nothing is wholly good or bad pal.)
I disagree, and so do many scientists. The theory that *all* the steps of evolution are attributable to chance makes the mechanism of evolution unbelieveably inefficient.
Think of the dolphin's blowhole. Did nature try out every possible place on the body for the blowhole, were many dolphins born with blowholes on their sides or under their fins or chins (ever seen a dolphin's chin?) or at the tips of their tails before the ones that had them on the tops of their heads won out evolutionarily speaking? I'm not saying that this didn't happen; but think if it did. Why should *only* the dolphins with the blowholes on their heads survive? Why not on their backs, say just in front of the dorsal, and why not on the tail? If it were entirely up to chance, it seems to me that some different blowhole mutations, while not providing as *great* an evolutionary advantage as the one placing it on the head, would still provide *enough* advantage for there to have developed dolphins with small but significant differences in biological makeup. This could be said of any species perhaps.
Next there is the matter of chance. If we rely conceptually on chance as much as you think we must, then it stands to reason that there is a greater chance of *not* evolving the blowhole than of actually evolving the blowhole. How many blowhole mutations would provide as much or close to as much advantage as the one on the head? A few. How many wouldn't? A LOT. Even if you restrict the number of possibilities of the placement of the blowhole by taking for granted the placement of the lungs, the mouth, and other organs and biological features, you still get A LOT of possibilities, and all of them will result in dead dolphins and a dead species.
Now I'm no creationist, but it seems clear to me (always has) that there's more going on than simple *chance* when it comes to evolution. I don't know about this multiverse thing, seems kinda like a big rationalization, in terms of an old paradigm, for phenomena that only appear under a new paradigm (it's only in classic physics that you can't have one thing in two places at the same time; but it's only in QED that you have things which can, so it's a bizarre little crutch). It would be much easier to account for evolution in terms of some sort of deeply rooted (DNA level) but geologically paced learning mechanism, by which experiences of the organism get translated into information on the level of DNA and are implemented in the next generation of the species. So, some kind of feedback system. I mean, after all, think about it: isn't it a little *too* coincidental that species generate evolutionary *beneficient* mutations, most of the time?
Of course, according to some observations, evolution jumps forward in fits and starts, so the learning mechanism would probably have to account for that.
"All those bad things said about us were in this flame contest. They weren't serious!"
Yeah, maybe that's their approach, except that everything they've done so far has been so AMAZINGLY dumb that it's almost impossible to chalk it up to anything but out-and-out stupidity. Everything they do just digs them a deeper hole.
The article's suggestions about a jukebox and about new copyright laws are what I would call constructive ideas.
I personally think that the music industry, and maybe the entire entertainment industry, will undergo a huge change in its "business model" not simply because of the internet, but simply because of the way the tech is getting cheaper and cheaper. I can set myself up with a computer-based recording studio for $2500, which includes a nice computer with lots of storage and memory and a Digi001 card (8 line-ins). (In case someone doesn't believe me: I'm doing it.) I don't know about movies, but I would be interested in hearing from others how hard/easy it would be to set up their own studios, using computers.
I don't think there will be any real need for the big studios in say about 30-40 years. I can see that kind of power and influence being useful for touring, which is where bands make most of their money, but I think recording will start to fall by the wayside, become a sort of vanity thing. It will become too easy for Joe Schmoe to get his or her (Jo) own studio set up in their basement for little outlay. Although, to be honest, the REAL locus for THAT little change will have to be in the minds of the musicians themselves. If musicians stopped feeling like they need to be on MTV, and started committing to a DIY set-up, then the big labels really would be in trouble.
Of course, they encourage that attitude.
Anyone got observations on how the movie industry will go?
But that's the whole problem: the entire notion that CSS is a PROTECTION scheme is a lie. Like they point out on Fool.com, the encryption DOES NOT PROTECT the disks from piracy. I can pirate as many as I want, and as long as I have an MPAA approved player, I can watch all those encrypted copies. The players aren't able to tell the difference. It's all incredibly transparent.
..is that there doesn't seem to be anywhere to respond on the latimes page to the total bullshit that Valenti is spewing. Why is the head of an interested party given the soapbox and no Reply button to be seen? Hm I wonder.
Probably everyone's seen it already, but in case it makes the littlest bit of difference, go to Cryptome.org and click on the link DVDumb, which will take you what IMO seems to be the clearest, most right-on appraisal of the whole shitfit.
Methodologies are abstractions of experience; people did something once, got beat up, figured out what they did wrong, and came up with a method for future attempts.
Therefore methodologies can turn out to be the worst of all possible situations. They allow inexperienced people to imitate experienced ones. But when a problem arise for which the methodology is unsuited, the users' inexperience bites them in the ass doublefold, as the methodology will act as a screen to their understanding the real source of the problem. For that you need an experienced person, who doesn't rely on that methodology - which sort of goes against the point of having the method.
I see Linux as being a community of experienced users. This means that methodologies may be more useful for them than for non-Linux users, as they should in general be better able to do without them. It depends on your approach I guess. It also strikes me that Linux could dispense with "methodologies" of the sort described as the province of idiotic QA consultants, as the pool of experience would create a more organic approach to all problems in general, and make everyone less dependant on an abstracted form of experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever is in charge of the rulemaking proceeding changed the accepted formats to include txt (isn't this ascii?). See Cryptome.org, there is a notice put up on that site detailing the changes. (The deadline for comments was also changed, it originally was 2/10.)
grove, past tense of to groove.
Hm.. I'd be willing to lay whatever money you want that Katz has never laid eyes on you.. and if that's so, how's he supposed to know you're not a teenager -
when you keep acting like one?
You dug it, man.
With the option of the child seeing sites blocked non-porn sites with the librarian's approval.
or should that be "with the librarian's approval?"
It's a brilliant idea, it really is, but don't you think others have already given that one a shot? I think so. It doesn't address the real issue, which is that the librarian is put into an untenable position in terms of becoming a guardian and monitor, which it isn't supposed to be. To use others' arguments, are you then going to say that a child can't read Catcher in the Rye because it has the word fuck in it, or other books that cross the filter line?
The simplest option is best: keep the libraries as hands-off as possible, and parents should be more open with their children. Sexual things won't do them damage. Children, real children, pre-pubescent children, are not really interested in porn, actually they think it's funny more often than not. Adolescents are interested in porn, but they are going to be more resourceful in getting it, so the filters will be ineffectual. (Just going through the neighbor's garbage for pete's sake..) But by this point in a child's life the parents should have broached sexuality.
(By the way, you could substitute "life" for "tech" in your interesting musings.. Nothing is wholly good or bad pal.)
I disagree, and so do many scientists. The theory that *all* the steps of evolution are attributable to chance makes the mechanism of evolution unbelieveably inefficient.
Think of the dolphin's blowhole. Did nature try out every possible place on the body for the blowhole, were many dolphins born with blowholes on their sides or under their fins or chins (ever seen a dolphin's chin?) or at the tips of their tails before the ones that had them on the tops of their heads won out evolutionarily speaking? I'm not saying that this didn't happen; but think if it did. Why should *only* the dolphins with the blowholes on their heads survive? Why not on their backs, say just in front of the dorsal, and why not on the tail? If it were entirely up to chance, it seems to me that some different blowhole mutations, while not providing as *great* an evolutionary advantage as the one placing it on the head, would still provide *enough* advantage for there to have developed dolphins with small but significant differences in biological makeup. This could be said of any species perhaps.
Next there is the matter of chance. If we rely conceptually on chance as much as you think we must, then it stands to reason that there is a greater chance of *not* evolving the blowhole than of actually evolving the blowhole. How many blowhole mutations would provide as much or close to as much advantage as the one on the head? A few. How many wouldn't? A LOT. Even if you restrict the number of possibilities of the placement of the blowhole by taking for granted the placement of the lungs, the mouth, and other organs and biological features, you still get A LOT of possibilities, and all of them will result in dead dolphins and a dead species.
Now I'm no creationist, but it seems clear to me (always has) that there's more going on than simple *chance* when it comes to evolution. I don't know about this multiverse thing, seems kinda like a big rationalization, in terms of an old paradigm, for phenomena that only appear under a new paradigm (it's only in classic physics that you can't have one thing in two places at the same time; but it's only in QED that you have things which can, so it's a bizarre little crutch). It would be much easier to account for evolution in terms of some sort of deeply rooted (DNA level) but geologically paced learning mechanism, by which experiences of the organism get translated into information on the level of DNA and are implemented in the next generation of the species. So, some kind of feedback system. I mean, after all, think about it: isn't it a little *too* coincidental that species generate evolutionary *beneficient* mutations, most of the time?
Of course, according to some observations, evolution jumps forward in fits and starts, so the learning mechanism would probably have to account for that.
"All those bad things said about us were in this flame contest. They weren't serious!"
Yeah, maybe that's their approach, except that everything they've done so far has been so AMAZINGLY dumb that it's almost impossible to chalk it up to anything but out-and-out stupidity. Everything they do just digs them a deeper hole.
The article's suggestions about a jukebox and about new copyright laws are what I would call constructive ideas.
I personally think that the music industry, and maybe the entire entertainment industry, will undergo a huge change in its "business model" not simply because of the internet, but simply because of the way the tech is getting cheaper and cheaper. I can set myself up with a computer-based recording studio for $2500, which includes a nice computer with lots of storage and memory and a Digi001 card (8 line-ins). (In case someone doesn't believe me: I'm doing it.) I don't know about movies, but I would be interested in hearing from others how hard/easy it would be to set up their own studios, using computers.
I don't think there will be any real need for the big studios in say about 30-40 years. I can see that kind of power and influence being useful for touring, which is where bands make most of their money, but I think recording will start to fall by the wayside, become a sort of vanity thing. It will become too easy for Joe Schmoe to get his or her (Jo) own studio set up in their basement for little outlay. Although, to be honest, the REAL locus for THAT little change will have to be in the minds of the musicians themselves. If musicians stopped feeling like they need to be on MTV, and started committing to a DIY set-up, then the big labels really would be in trouble.
Of course, they encourage that attitude.
Anyone got observations on how the movie industry will go?
But that's the whole problem: the entire notion that CSS is a PROTECTION scheme is a lie. Like they point out on Fool.com, the encryption DOES NOT PROTECT the disks from piracy. I can pirate as many as I want, and as long as I have an MPAA approved player, I can watch all those encrypted copies. The players aren't able to tell the difference. It's all incredibly transparent.
..is that there doesn't seem to be anywhere to respond on the latimes page to the total bullshit that Valenti is spewing. Why is the head of an interested party given the soapbox and no Reply button to be seen? Hm I wonder.
Probably everyone's seen it already, but in case it makes the littlest bit of difference, go to Cryptome.org and click on the link DVDumb, which will take you what IMO seems to be the clearest, most right-on appraisal of the whole shitfit.
Methodologies are abstractions of experience; people did something once, got beat up, figured out what they did wrong, and came up with a method for future attempts.
Therefore methodologies can turn out to be the worst of all possible situations. They allow inexperienced people to imitate experienced ones. But when a problem arise for which the methodology is unsuited, the users' inexperience bites them in the ass doublefold, as the methodology will act as a screen to their understanding the real source of the problem. For that you need an experienced person, who doesn't rely on that methodology - which sort of goes against the point of having the method.
I see Linux as being a community of experienced users. This means that methodologies may be more useful for them than for non-Linux users, as they should in general be better able to do without them. It depends on your approach I guess. It also strikes me that Linux could dispense with "methodologies" of the sort described as the province of idiotic QA consultants, as the pool of experience would create a more organic approach to all problems in general, and make everyone less dependant on an abstracted form of experience.