Well, this ruins GMail's major argument. AFAIK, "We're no spam relay" has never been touted as a major feature of GMail. Why should they do that? No major webmail provider would intenionally do such a thing. (Which, of course, doesn't porevent bugs and screw-ups as, apparently, in this case.)
By riding this out, you give no incentive to actually fix anything. In theory, you're right: If all the server admins in the world united and blocked GMail, that'd send a message to Google to fix this ASAP.
In practice, however, Google is likely to do just that anyway, and since there is no organized blacklisting going on, a sole action by the GP poster would most likely annoy his users while Google itself wouldn't even notice it.
(Unless, of course, the GP happens to be the sysadmin for Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail or something similar - in that case: Blacklist, baby!;-) )
The idea is to get as close to that ideal as possible, so we look to maximize the public benefit: terms that are just barely long enough to encourage creation and publication, but by all means so short that they don't interfere much with the public. I basically agree with that. I think 70 years after the creator's death is actually too long for the current state of culture. For most works, something like 10 or 20 years after creation or first publication should probably be more than enough. It shouldn't be too short a time span, though, otherwise publishers could simply wait until copyright expires and then exploit a work without compensating the author at all.
completely taking away any creator's rights is not the answer, either [...] I think that some form of copyright (much less than we have now) would produce a greater benefit, but it's certainly possible that none would. So abolishment always has to remain on the table as a possible option. Sure, I just don't think it's a valid option. IMHO there needs to be some way for an artist to prevent others from stealing their works - at least for a certain amount of time to reward them for creating the work in the first place. Otherwise, we'd be back in an era where only the idle rich can afford to invest time into creating art.
I would miss the PDF royalties *very* much if they evaporated [...] Authors are real people with families and mortgages The folks who made a living selling buggy whips were real people too, with their own families and mortgages to worry about. Flawed analogy: People didn't buy whips anymore because they had no more meed for them. On the contrary, people nowadays still want to get writers' works, they just don't want to pay for it anymore.
If we had used the force of law to protect their incomes, those few people would've been better off -- at everyone else's expense.
We're in the same situation now. Some people won't or can't adapt to a world where they can't make a living selling copies of information: a world where their talent as artists and authors is still valuable, but only when it's applied directly, not indirectly via copyright. So how would that work? Why should I spend months or years researching and writing a book, if there's absolutely nothing to stop people from freely distributing it once its out there? Sure, some people are still going to writem but it'll be fewer, and I fail to see how our culture would benefit from that. (Of course, society would be better off without greedy corporations trying to destroy fair use rights and extending copyright ad infinitum, but completely taking away any creator's rights is not the answer, either.
The fact that it would be better to make use of aerodynamic principals to help my glide down and make landfall in a safely controlled manner is completely m00t to those like us. But how do you convince those principals to take time off from their schoolwork to help you glide down? And how can you tell whether they're aerodynamic?
Blu-ray is alive today only because a punch of pimply-faced teens got a PS3 for Christmas, and suddenly believed that they had to defend all things Sony, including the blu-ray format that they happened into by chance. While I own neither a PS3 nor an XBox 360, I find it funny, how the PS3 is usually getting slammed for being too expensive, having no cool exclusive titles and generally not seilling well - however as soon as we're talking about BluRay, it's suddenly supposed to be this Juggernaut driving out the other HD format. Could all the fanboys please decide whether they want to bah it for being a failure or for being too successful?
Adaptive encryption...yeah, expect divx like lock-downs and timed rentals soon enough with blu-ray. Rentals are always timed in some way or other - that's what makes them different from buying. Actually, timed rentals are IMHO pretty much the only valid use for DRM. (Especially when I can download them instead of having to go to ta store or wait for a DVD in the mail.)
Sony trojan horsed the PS3 into households So it goes like this: 1. Add Blu-Ray to console 2. Be a year late to market, more expensive than competition, and overall the worst selling console 3. ??? 4. Dominate the HD market!
Add the value of combo discs that you can get for HD-DVD, but not Blu-ray, and the average household either has to upgrade wholesale at once (have fun getting a blu-ray player for the SUV), or buy all media twice. Wow, so the average US household has an SUV with a DVD player?
Can you cite a source that they charge for any of their SDKs? No. But this is an SDK for a mobile phone, and I can cite sources that other companies making SDKs for mobile phones do charge. At the same time, Apple's giving away its desktop SDKs for free. Considering how greedy they can get, there's no guarantee they'll do the same on the iPhone, but it might happen. So there's fuel for both sides of the argument which basically means: We don't know. (Surprising, isn't it...?)
Therefore, any attempt to justify anything with "the high price of the iPhone SDK" is nothing but FUD until any supposed pricing has been announced.
It's a growing trend to synchronise major fireworks displays to music. [...] It never seems to work for me. The reason, is that they synchronise the mid-air explosion to the music, not the kaboom that accompanys the launch of the shell. Actually, I think they synchronise it to the visuals of the explosions, which works fine for me. The "kaboom" sounds are more of a necessary evil, IMHO. You still have to be close enough to the speakers, of course, otherwise the light will reach you before the music. At one major show I watched, they compensated for this by slightly delaying the soundtrack in the speakers farther away from the fireworks.
Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. Why they keep fixing security holes makes no real sense. Fixed that for you. All unsupported iPhone apps rely on security holes to install. Should they really leave tose unpatched for every single user just to please the hacking community?
I'm all for 3rd party apps on the iPhone, and if Apple's announced SDK turns out to be weak, count me among the complainers, but I don't expect Apple to compromise their phone's sceurity to please the hacker out there.
Is the lack of acceptance simply because of not currently beingn in a relationship, or is it because you've never been in one, or are pssibly even still a virgin. All of the above, in various combinations [...] There are people who know, and things get out. People gossip in Germany too right? They do, of course, but I doubt anything like "X is a virgin" or "Y has never had a relationship" would create much of a stir over here. (At least not with the people I know - male and female middle class thirtysomethings with some College education, some in relationships, some single, very few are married or have children.) These subjects make excellent gossip in the German equivalent to high school years, but later on, people really don't tend to care that much. People may be surprised to hear it, but I doubt they'd feel the need to spread the word or would treat someone differently because of it.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it's easier to get a date over here.:-) (And yes, I do speak from experience - single since 5 years, and not liking it.)
I wonder what may be the cause of these perceived cultural differences: Ist it actually "USA vs. Germany", is it "the people you know vs the people I know", or is it just "the way you look at the world vs. the way I look at it"?
Lame conclusion: Probably some combination of the above...
More socially acceptable to be single? Maybe more in the same way that 2 is more than 1 on a scale of 100. It's still not very acceptable. [...] I've seen the changes first hand when people find out; you're never treated the same after that. That's why it's not something I wear on my sleeve as you can imagine. Really? Out of curiosity: How old are you and which country are you from? (And no, this is not a come-on.;-) ) Also: Is the lack of acceptance simply because of not currently beingn in a relationship, or is it because you've never been in one, or are pssibly even still a virgin.(Even though I don't know how that last one would come up in casual conversation...)
BTW: Excuse the personal questions. I only dare ask them because you chose to remain an AC anyway. Feel free to ignore anything you don't feel like answering.
I'm 32 and single, and over here in Germany nobody's giving me a hard time about it. I also have single friends and colleagues (both male and female) who are in their forties or even fifties, and AFAIK people don't treat them any different from those in relationships. (It's another question whether they themselves are happy with their status, of course...)
Come to think of it, I can see how that might be different in other Western countries: I spent about a year in the wonderful metropolis of Collinsville, OK in High School, and over there, most people seemed to get married in their early 20s, so I could see how an unattached person might stick out.
"Since there are as many women as men, everyone finds someone to mate with even if they aren't ideal"
My 27 years of life without sex or even a partner seems to show a flaw in your model. [...] I suppose I'm also just one case, and statistically insignificant, but you're using words like "everyone" and since I'm part of everyone... Trust me, you're not alone with this one. IMHO, the number of "unwilling" singles has increased quite a bit in the past few decades.
There are several social factors at work, here:
1) Less financial pressure to look for a mate, since people can afford living without a family. You don't necessarily need a partner or children to care for you when you're old. (Although it would probably be nice to have someone who'd visit you...) Also, women do not depend on marriage to survive anymore.
2) Less social pressure to seek a mate, since it's become socially acceptable to be single for both men and women.
Both #1 and #2 contribute to a shrinking market of potential mates, since people have less reason to look for one in the first place, and even if they do they'll be more discriminating, since their survival doesn't depend on finding a partner.
3) Less opportunities to meet people. Imagine the world before TV: If you didn't want books or crafts to be your only source of entertainment in your spare time, you had to go outside and meet living, breathing people. With TV, your home offers more entertainment than any theatre, but without the fellow audience. (Actually, the internet may lessen this effect, since it's obviously a very social medium, although without actual physical presence.)
4) More ways to spend your time alone. This is closely related to #3: With more solo activities available, shy people will have more ways to avoid human contact, thus they'll have less opportunities to develop their social skills and overcome their shyness. Again, social contacts via the internet might counter that effect to a certain extent.
With relationships being much more optional than ever before, the natural advantage of sociable people is amplified, and quieter, more reclusive people are less likely to find a mate. However IMHO, this state would need to stay like that for quite awhile in order to have any significant evulutionary impact, especially since all of this only applies to societys that are roughly similar to our western culture, of course. I have no idea how things work in other cultural regions.
Perhaps Apple's dev team are just bowing to the inevitable. But how does that fare with AT&T and the exclusive contract. iPhone Dev is not Apple's team. They're a bunch of hackers dedicated to allowing 3rd party apps on an iPhone.
The US has some of the weakest defamation laws in the world [...] It is nearly impossible to get sued in the US for libel and or defamation against a public figure. [...] There are a lot of things to not love about many American laws. US free speech law (or lack there off) is not one of them. That depends on whether you're the one being slandered without just cause or the one doing the slandering...
BoingBoing covered the story, too, and the comments on it are rather encouraging.
Especially this one:
For now, I can report that this proposal is apparently not going anywhere: Paolo Gentiloni, one of the ministers involved in drafting the law, admitted of "not having thoroughly read the proposal" because he thought that "it was not going to alter the status quo". He is now declaring that this law will certainly be changed in order to keep blogs out of the picture, and that he's sure that Mr. Ricardo Franco Levi is the first who will be willing to take action to change it.
Of course it won't work on iPods. According to TFA, the music can't be burned to CDs, meaning it's using DRM. The only DRM working on iPods is Apple's own FairPlay which they're not licensing. (According to their FAQ, they're using WMA DRM, which has never been compatible with iPods.) Basically, there's no legal and future-proof way to make their business model work with iPods without Apple's support, no matter how much they might want to do that. (And I guess they's jump at the chance, considering the iPod's popularity.)
You know, I have lots of issues with Grenpeace, namely their tendency to concentrate on issues that'll get them media exposure instead of those which may be more pressing, but exactly that tendency has driven them to do anything but run away from danger. For better or worse, this chase from the G8 summit e.g. doesn't look like running away to me. (It's debatable whether it serves any purpose besides grabbing headlines, but that's another issue.)
You mean Europeople have to manually set the time? I think you're lying. For the record: He isn't. I own 2 GSM cell phones, each with a different German provider. Both have an option for obtaining time via the network, but it doesn't work with either one. I suppose it's an optional feature that neither provider offers. (Apparently, most other uopean provders don't, either.)
``It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."''
Yes, exactly. And the conclusion that follows from that is that your model is not correct, not that what you observe is not normal. Exactly - which shows that the quote you pulled out of its context ("it is not normal") says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says when read in context ("it is not normal, based on observational studies or simulations").
BTW: Do you really believe that scientist is trying to say "That's simply not normal, so we should ignore it and plow on"?
There is a difference between "normal" and "natural". Norms are subject to change, so you may observe "not normal" pehnomenons in nature, i.e. events that should have played out differently according to established theories. These are obvously signs that the theories are flawed or incomplete.
Declaring something is not normal because it doesn't agree with our imperfect idea about how things work seems to be the wrong way about it to me. The full quote is: "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe."
That doesn't mean it's not normal per se. It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."
An internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Unfortunately, they didn't tell me how much they paid.
Slashdot Mirror
...because currently, no Linux bug could possibly be older than roughly 17 years. :-)
In practice, however, Google is likely to do just that anyway, and since there is no organized blacklisting going on, a sole action by the GP poster would most likely annoy his users while Google itself wouldn't even notice it.
(Unless, of course, the GP happens to be the sysadmin for Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail or something similar - in that case: Blacklist, baby!
[...]
I think that some form of copyright (much less than we have now) would produce a greater benefit, but it's certainly possible that none would. So abolishment always has to remain on the table as a possible option. Sure, I just don't think it's a valid option. IMHO there needs to be some way for an artist to prevent others from stealing their works - at least for a certain amount of time to reward them for creating the work in the first place. Otherwise, we'd be back in an era where only the idle rich can afford to invest time into creating art.
We're in the same situation now. Some people won't or can't adapt to a world where they can't make a living selling copies of information: a world where their talent as artists and authors is still valuable, but only when it's applied directly, not indirectly via copyright. So how would that work? Why should I spend months or years researching and writing a book, if there's absolutely nothing to stop people from freely distributing it once its out there? Sure, some people are still going to writem but it'll be fewer, and I fail to see how our culture would benefit from that. (Of course, society would be better off without greedy corporations trying to destroy fair use rights and extending copyright ad infinitum, but completely taking away any creator's rights is not the answer, either.
1. Add Blu-Ray to console
2. Be a year late to market, more expensive than competition, and overall the worst selling console
3. ???
4. Dominate the HD market!
Jens
Therefore, any attempt to justify anything with "the high price of the iPhone SDK" is nothing but FUD until any supposed pricing has been announced.
[...]
It never seems to work for me. The reason, is that they synchronise the mid-air explosion to the music, not the kaboom that accompanys the launch of the shell. Actually, I think they synchronise it to the visuals of the explosions, which works fine for me. The "kaboom" sounds are more of a necessary evil, IMHO. You still have to be close enough to the speakers, of course, otherwise the light will reach you before the music. At one major show I watched, they compensated for this by slightly delaying the soundtrack in the speakers farther away from the fireworks.
I'm all for 3rd party apps on the iPhone, and if Apple's announced SDK turns out to be weak, count me among the complainers, but I don't expect Apple to compromise their phone's sceurity to please the hacker out there.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it's easier to get a date over here.
I wonder what may be the cause of these perceived cultural differences: Ist it actually "USA vs. Germany", is it "the people you know vs the people I know", or is it just "the way you look at the world vs. the way I look at it"?
Lame conclusion: Probably some combination of the above...
BTW: Excuse the personal questions. I only dare ask them because you chose to remain an AC anyway. Feel free to ignore anything you don't feel like answering.
I'm 32 and single, and over here in Germany nobody's giving me a hard time about it. I also have single friends and colleagues (both male and female) who are in their forties or even fifties, and AFAIK people don't treat them any different from those in relationships. (It's another question whether they themselves are happy with their status, of course...)
Come to think of it, I can see how that might be different in other Western countries: I spent about a year in the wonderful metropolis of Collinsville, OK in High School, and over there, most people seemed to get married in their early 20s, so I could see how an unattached person might stick out.
My 27 years of life without sex or even a partner seems to show a flaw in your model. [...] I suppose I'm also just one case, and statistically insignificant, but you're using words like "everyone" and since I'm part of everyone... Trust me, you're not alone with this one. IMHO, the number of "unwilling" singles has increased quite a bit in the past few decades.
There are several social factors at work, here:
1) Less financial pressure to look for a mate, since people can afford living without a family. You don't necessarily need a partner or children to care for you when you're old. (Although it would probably be nice to have someone who'd visit you...) Also, women do not depend on marriage to survive anymore.
2) Less social pressure to seek a mate, since it's become socially acceptable to be single for both men and women.
Both #1 and #2 contribute to a shrinking market of potential mates, since people have less reason to look for one in the first place, and even if they do they'll be more discriminating, since their survival doesn't depend on finding a partner.
3) Less opportunities to meet people. Imagine the world before TV: If you didn't want books or crafts to be your only source of entertainment in your spare time, you had to go outside and meet living, breathing people. With TV, your home offers more entertainment than any theatre, but without the fellow audience. (Actually, the internet may lessen this effect, since it's obviously a very social medium, although without actual physical presence.)
4) More ways to spend your time alone. This is closely related to #3: With more solo activities available, shy people will have more ways to avoid human contact, thus they'll have less opportunities to develop their social skills and overcome their shyness. Again, social contacts via the internet might counter that effect to a certain extent.
With relationships being much more optional than ever before, the natural advantage of sociable people is amplified, and quieter, more reclusive people are less likely to find a mate. However IMHO, this state would need to stay like that for quite awhile in order to have any significant evulutionary impact, especially since all of this only applies to societys that are roughly similar to our western culture, of course. I have no idea how things work in other cultural regions.
[...]
There are a lot of things to not love about many American laws. US free speech law (or lack there off) is not one of them. That depends on whether you're the one being slandered without just cause or the one doing the slandering...
Especially this one: For now, I can report that this proposal is apparently not going anywhere: Paolo Gentiloni, one of the ministers involved in drafting the law, admitted of "not having thoroughly read the proposal" because he thought that "it was not going to alter the status quo". He is now declaring that this law will certainly be changed in order to keep blogs out of the picture, and
that he's sure that Mr. Ricardo Franco Levi is the first who will be willing to take action to change it.
...as well as implementing a redundant RAID. Is that like an ATM Machine? Or a PIN Number?Considering this new development, shouldn't we be calling them "clockroaches" from now on?
Of course it won't work on iPods. According to TFA, the music can't be burned to CDs, meaning it's using DRM. The only DRM working on iPods is Apple's own FairPlay which they're not licensing. (According to their FAQ, they're using WMA DRM, which has never been compatible with iPods.) Basically, there's no legal and future-proof way to make their business model work with iPods without Apple's support, no matter how much they might want to do that. (And I guess they's jump at the chance, considering the iPod's popularity.)
You know, I have lots of issues with Grenpeace, namely their tendency to concentrate on issues that'll get them media exposure instead of those which may be more pressing, but exactly that tendency has driven them to do anything but run away from danger. For better or worse, this chase from the G8 summit e.g. doesn't look like running away to me. (It's debatable whether it serves any purpose besides grabbing headlines, but that's another issue.)
Jens
Yes, exactly. And the conclusion that follows from that is that your model is not correct, not that what you observe is not normal. Exactly - which shows that the quote you pulled out of its context ("it is not normal") says exactly the opposite of what you claim it says when read in context ("it is not normal, based on observational studies or simulations").
BTW: Do you really believe that scientist is trying to say "That's simply not normal, so we should ignore it and plow on"?
There is a difference between "normal" and "natural". Norms are subject to change, so you may observe "not normal" pehnomenons in nature, i.e. events that should have played out differently according to established theories. These are obvously signs that the theories are flawed or incomplete.
Declaring something is not normal because it doesn't agree with our imperfect idea about how things work seems to be the wrong way about it to me. The full quote is: "What we've found is not normal, based on either observational studies or on computer simulations of the large-scale evolution of the universe."
That doesn't mean it's not normal per se. It means that this void is caused by some factor not previously observed or taken into account in simulations, i.e. "If these simulations were 100% correct, something like this couldn't occur."
(Let the speculations commence...)
An internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Unfortunately, they didn't tell me how much they paid.