I can't find where it states how much tax is paid from the State of Alaska for the oil pumped here.
Can you expand on this for me? I'm curious, because it's a complex issue. Alaska was purchased by the Fed, and I think it is reasonable, therefore, to see the oil in Alaska as,at least in part, a US owned resource. But that in itself is an interesting question - who gets the money for the mineral rights? Some of the drilling is on national land, does that money go to the Fed? Is any of the drilling on state land? Who gets that money? Is any on private land? Who gets that money?
It seems that the US, which purchased the land, should get something from the mineral rights. Saying that all taxes on oil paid by Alaska are inherently moneys owed Alaska is overly simplified. If the US gets 100% of the money from mineral rights, then it might be obvious that Alaska is owed something. If Alaska gets 100% from the mineral rights, I think a very strong argument could be made that Alaska should be paying something to the US, perhaps in taxes, on that money.
How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?
What is the product you are attempting to sell? What question are you asking?
Consider how most software engineers make money. We are performance artists. We are paid to perform a creative act. Most of the world's software (in terms of lines) is never sold on a per-copy basis. Most lines of code are written on a performance basis; custom enterprise code.
Historically, this is also how musicians were paid. It is how most musicians are paid even today (far more musicians play in bar bands than have record deals). It is an extremely efficient economic model, because it is a free market model. Most musicians exchange their time performing music for compensation; playing out in bars across the country. A musician's time is a naturally limited commodity, and there is demand for it. Hence, there is a natural price. That price is reached almost perfectly in our currency-based free-market economy.
One interesting recent development in this model is the ability to distribute music inexpensively. This grants the performing musician the ability to advertise for a very low price, recently approaching zero with the advent of the Internet. Musicians can now audition for gigs in distant cities at the drop of an email. They can build their local audience by giving away CDs at their shows - CDs that can be produced for far less than the total cost of producing and broadcasting a television, or even radio, commercial. (for additional material here, consider the potential for performance musicians to advertise by having their music played on the radio, and consider how the relationship between the record labels and the radio stations may affect that channel)
In the past 100 years, another model of trade in the music industry has evolved; the sale of copies of performances. It is backed by a government enforced fiat monopoly. That is, it is not a free market model. The model remained fairly practical for the first 60 or 70 years, while the cost of duplication for the home consumer was high. As long as the cost of duplication was high for the majority of customers, the inefficiency of the monopoly was hidden. The monopoly price did not dramatically diverge from the consumer's perceived value, because the cost of small-scale reproduction was dramatically higher than the cost of large-scale reproduction. The monopoly market has always been enormously inefficient, but that inefficiency was hidden by the fact that the vast majority of consumers percieved themselves as paying for the duplication. The efficiencies of scale overwhelmed the inefficiency of the fiat monopoly.
Now this is all changing. (for more material here, consider the lobbying and legislation that accompanied the invention of radio, and the subsequent symbiotic trust that has developed between radio and the record labels)
After radio, the next big exposure of the fiat monopoly's inherent inefficiency came with audio and video cassettes. Another round of legal wrangling occured, but it was slightly different - Washington came out more on the side of the fiat monopolists this time. They instituted stricter copyright infringement legislation.
In this, the latest round, cost of duplication has effectively hit zero. The inherent inefficiency of the fiat monopoly is now completely exposed to most of the target market of the music industry. Once again, there has been a great deal of wrangling in Washington. And it has shifted further in favor of the fiat monopolists. It has shifted so far, in fact, that many more consumers than during any previous shift are engaging in civil disobedience.
All of which is to say, are you sure you are asking the right question? Should the question be, "How do we make this inherently anti-free-market model work?" Or should it be, "Why are we using police force to artificially support an economically inefficient model,
I know a lot of MMORPG players and not one of them are still playing WoW - which is strange because the sampling of the people I know has pretty well tracked player populations for every previous MMORPG over the past six to seven years I've been playing them.
Where are all these WoW players and what are they doing while they are logged in all these months since the game went live?
I play WoW in a decent sized guild. A solid 50% of them are not gamers. My brother is the perfect example. He plays two games on the computer - WoW, and a poker tutorial game.
Which may suggest the answer to your question: You know a lot of hard-core gamers, to whom WoW may not be attractive. It is EQ easy-mode, after all. But, to a great many people like my brother who grew up with video games but were never hard-core about it, WoW is a pleasant distraction for an hour or three a week.
I was once a hard-core gamer, but I got distracted by other shiny things along the way. Now I play WoW a bit, and it's fun. Hard-core me probably wouldn't have liked it much - there is too much chance, not enough reward for mad skillz. Casual me finds it to be just about right.
Other than following Sturgeon's Law, what quality problems [does the American movie industry have]?
I just looked over your comment history and found that you contribute nothing but these pitiful one-line jabs. If you are actually interested in an answer to your question, write something poignant and on-topic. Challenge me. Make me think. Show me you're using that lump on your shoulders for something more than a hat rack.
Re:One thing is for sure
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
we needed to pay for IP because the only movies that'd be left would be horrible pieces of crap like this.
Great movies aren't always about great CGI and slick editing. Check out Hard Boiled or The Killer (Woo/Fat) or Clerks for examples. Which is not to say that this documentary is a great movie, but that even if copyright infringement did lead to a decline in production values, it would not necessarily lead to a decline in the quality of movies. The sterile and prohibitive movie industry in America has its own quality problems. Different than independant film, but not necessarily better or worse. A point made in the documentary is that the money has shifted the focus in Hollywood from creative expression to putting butts in seats. When you primarily serve the latter, you often short-change the former.
If you feel that good production values are necessary to tell a good story, you are missing out on a lot of great film.
The only result is that fair use will get marginalized and ignored.
You are mistaken. This documentary is not advocating the retention of fair use rights under existing copyright. It is advocating a change in copyright law. It may not be a position you agree with. It may not be a position I agree with. But if you see this as a poor job of advocating fair use, you have missed the point.
You may think it is all about getting something for nothing. Some people think fair use is all about getting something for nothing. Neither is the case. Both are far more complex issues. And as long as there is not understanding, there will not be resolution.
Cable and the internet has diminished broadcast influence, but there's plenty of concentrated power left as this Barney case illustrates. Ultimately, free culture will level the playing field.
Not necessarily. If we reach a point where the Internet is not a level field, then we will be right back where we were twenty years ago: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Given that the people in the US with the money and power are directly threatened by free competition, that the people who benefit most from it (We The People) are predominately ignorant of what is happening, and that even those who do know what is happening are too comfortable to make real sacrifices (eg: jail, bodily harm, death) to defend it, how long do you think the free Internet is going to last?
"1. A system that facilitates self-regulation of a social network comprising: a network monitoring component that watches user behavior on the social network; and an asset allocation component that allocates or re-allocates one or more assets among one or more network users based at least in part on whether the user behavior is desirable."
As I read that, the Slashdot moderation system infringes.
Indeed the Slashdot mod system is prior art. But there's a much more clear-cut example: Bittorrent. And if you want something more historic, how about going back to the BBSs of the 80s that had upload/download ratios.
Reuters is reporting that AOL Chief Technical Officer Maureen Govern has resigned from the company. Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough?
One executive fired? And they don't even have the balls to call it fired? (not that anyone ever does any more) Not enough by a damned site.
She'll have a new job inside of a week, and she probably got fifty million in parting gifts. Fire every person in the hierarchy that did it, after cancelling all their golden parachutes. Then put $100 million into efforts to reform corporate executive corruption and incompetence, and another $100 million into promoting serious privacy standards and legislation. Then maybe we can have an article asking whether it was enough.
When you have a total compensation package that is one thousand times that of the average engineer, and you are so incompetent that the people working for you either don't know enough about information science to grasp that this was a breach of privacy, or don't realize that it is important to your customers, merely getting fired is not even close. If she could screw up this monstrously, imagine what else she must have gotten wrong. It goes a long way to explain their stock price.
You really can't/shouldn't make software/licenes a moral warfare or a means for social reform.
I think you are about to contradict yourself.
People want the freedom to decide how their long and hard hours of work should be distributed.
Precisely. Assuming you support the current state of copyright, the terms of redistribution should be the creator's choice. But that seems to contradict your statement above, that some licenses should not be used.
Interesting - the first was an emotional appeal using polarizing terms like "moral warfare" and "social reform". The second statement is a more rational statement about the rights of the creator. The first, the emotional appeal, is clearly in opposition to GPL 3. The latter, the rational position, is in favor of it. I wonder if this pattern will hold throughout your post...
GPL 3 is basicly a way to make the midless Stallman followers to be more zealot about the things Stallman disaproves of.
Emotional appeal. Opposed to GPL 3.
As an aside, GPL 3 is an option between BSD and proprietary (and between GPL 2 and proprietary). Proprietary allows zero redistribution, and so implicitly includes all the restrictions of GPL 3. You cannot take MS Windows and redistribute it for use in a DRM system any more than you can GPL 3 software. Redistribution is the only thing covered by GPL. It is the only thing that can be covered, because it uses the same copyright laws that proprietary uses.
People who actually can think for themselves will/should read the licenes and choose the ones they like the best or write their own if there is to manything they really don't want to use.
While there is an emotional element in here, the core statement, "People should read the licenses and choose the ones they like the best..." is a rational statement. And it supports the existence of GPL 3.
The reasons for GPL is a fairly standard open source license that programmers can use and not have to worry about writting up.
Another rational statement that supports GPL 3.
But if they make it so Stallman then they just can't use it.
Another emotional appeal, and once again opposed to GPL 3.
as a developer I want the freedome to do what I want with my code and decide who should do what with it.
Again a rational statement of the rights that you feel should be granted to the creator. And again, it supports the existence of GPL 3.
If I choose that GNU is good then I will use it, if not then I want an other choice.
And again, rational statement, in support of GPL 3.
Stallman is moving CopyLeft to CopyFarLeft.
And finally back to emotional appeal with the polarizing term, "FarLeft." To my utter surprise, it is opposed to GPL 3.
Every rational statement in your post supports the existence of GPL 3 and the right of the creator to decide whether to use it. All your statements in opposition are emotional appeals using polarizing terms. You're halfway to the world of science (which is a damned site better than most of the people in the world). I believe in you, I think you can make it; drop the emotional polarization and make the jump to fully rational. We need more good people like you.
"...exhaustively tests whether you comply with the standard or not." A test suite cannot tell you if an implementation is compliant
Yes, it can. If the question is boolean, then the test pointed to by grandparent definitely can give an objective answer. Currently, every browser I know of would fail, but it can give an answer.
or to what degree an implementation is compliant.
Yes, it can. It can give you a consistent answer on the number of passed and failed tests. That number may be biased for a given single run, but it can give a consistent answer, so it can be used to test relative compliance. It may give a fuzzy response that is open to interpretation, but I would bet that when testing different versions of the same browser, the answer would almost always be clear. It would be something like this:
IE6: Passed; 77. Failed; 39. IE7: Passed; 92, Failed; 24. IE7 Relative to IE6: Passed in IE6, Failed in IE7; 2. Passed in IE7, Failed in IE6; 17.
"One of the things I said in my post is that I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have an analysis of exactly where we are as a number with supporting or complying with CSS"
Actually, it's easy. There's an example of the numbers above. Are the numbers fuzzy? Yes. Does it provide, "an analysis of exactly where you are"? Yes. It is, "an analysis" and it is based on "exactly where you are." Is the result fuzzy? Of course. Every test of every human endeavor in history has either had a loose question or given a fuzzy result. Now stop being a sissy and answer the damned question.
"we really only did standards improvements - particularly CSS and HTML improvements. That was really the largest focus of our platform work overall."
If that is the case (though when someone uses "really" twice in two sentences without providing supporting evidence I think he doth protest too much), and this guy really is involved in the project, then he should have those numbers tatooed on his inner thigh. If CSS and HTML compliance really was the largest focus of the largest software company ever, he would at least be able to say something. He would be able to say, "I don't think these numbers are perfect, but here's what we get on the official test suite."
If MS really were focusing on those tests, even if he really believed that taking number passed over number failed was such a great injustice, they would have those numbers printed in 120 point font and hung on the wall of the developer area. He could have said, "Well, I can't give you a percentage, because percentages are inherently subjective - they weight every test the same which does not necessarily reflect the value of each test to the total user experience. And though the results are subjective, the tests are objective, and we track them like a hawk. Hey - we're the biggest software company in the world. Software loves tests. So, while I reiterate that these numbers are't perfect, I can tell you that IE7 now passes 17 tests that IE6 did not, and failed 2 that IE6 passed, using the W3C's standard set of CSS 2.1 tests. You can get the specific list of test results at www.microsoft.com/ie7-css-test/."
Or he can say none of that, and I will remain unclear on Microsoft's current view on standards. I won't claim that I know them to be as bad as they have been, simply that what this guy says is sound and fury signifying nothing. Which is all that GP was saying.
He claims that this particular course is their "largest focus", a course which they have repeatedly faltered from, with apparent intent, in the past. He says there is no way of providing a number, without even acknowledging the existence of the official set of tests. Not even to say they suck. Either he doesn't know they exist, or he doesn't feel they are important, or he feels the results would leave the audience nonplussed. The one thing we can say for sure is not the case is what he is implicitly claiming; that they are deeply interested in passing the tests, that they always know the results for the latest build, and that they are proud of their accomplishments.
"Take-Two has until five o'clock p.m., Eastern time, Monday, August 14, 2006, to inform me in writing that it will forthwith provide me with a copy of Bully so that I and others can analyze it to determine whether it still poses a threat of copycat violence in our schools"
At the risk of sounding AOL: Oooh - Me too please!
Their response? "The new software should produce exactly the same numbers as the old software." "But the old numbers are WRONG!" "That does not matter, the new software should produce exactly the same numbers as the old software."
Laugh, cry. Had the exact same thing (though with advertising conversion rates, not interest) on a different project from the one I noted above. Spent a month on the analysis and statistics. Learned all about lognormal distributions. The answers were beautiful. <shrug>
Business: We need to be able to store thirds, eighths, and hundredths of a unit in the same field. Then we need to add them up, and it has to be exact. Developer: OK, one second... cool. We'll store the number of 600ths. Business: 600ths? What is a 600th? Just use 100ths. Developer: You said you need thirds, right? Business: Yeah, use.33. Developer: You said it needs to be exact, right? Business: Yes. Developer: 3 *.33 is.99. Business: Oh, yeah. Just round that. Developer: But that's not exact, and the error can be cumulative. Business: It's close enough. Developer: You know, we could store 600ths for accuracy, and display 100ths for user-friendliness. Would that help? Business: Just use 100ths. Developer: Right. Thanks. <bangs head on desk>
The field is stored as hundredths.
I know that the problem the article is talking about is the 1.0+1.0=2.000001 problem - but this story is still funny.
You seem to have mistaken me for something I am not. A few quick notes:
I voted for McCain and Sheriff Joe (google him) in 2004. I intend to support McCain for President in 2008. I own guns, have a concealed carry license, and support the NRA. I am an ardent supporter of free market capitalism, largely as identified by Ayn Rand. I support GATT and NAFTA. I am a software engineer, but support outsourcing. I prefer small government, federalism, and a balanced budget. I believe that the second ammendment is as important as the first, fourth, and fifth.
To your points: # doesn't lie to us - humans lie and the government is staffed by humans # get things so horribly wrong - humans err and the government is staffed by humans # rampant bribery in Washington - see the first two That was the point of this thread, was it not? The question of whether we trust our govern-ors? Are you honestly suggesting that the govern-ors and the government are separate entities? You mention in another response that the hive-mind magically makes corrupt individuals reach principled cooperation - is it impossible in your mind that the hive mind populated by the corrupt could acheive greater heights of corruption than the sum of its parts? Or are you suggesting that we should throw up our hands and accept our fate? The latter is completely contrary to the founding principles of this great nation (which currently is being steered in a number of wrong directions).
take extraordinary action like starting wars over those mistaken notions - hindsight is 20/20. most of those notions are actually proven correct though. But you won't listen or research. The reason given to the American People was WMD. The only WMDs we have found are the ones we sold them for Iran/Iraq, were not in servicable condition, and most were beyond the point where they could be made servicable.
Maybe it would help if they didn't miss events like Katrina - we actually did a wonderful job You are out of your mind.
during Katrina you just have unrealistic expectations as a poor grasp of the logistics. Asking the head of FEMA to interrupt his dinner is unrealistic? The breadth of the failure lead to a Senate inquiry and a bunch of findings, including the restructuring of the hierarchy to FEMA. Everyone (except, apparently, you) says it was a failure.
If the only truth you glean is through the narrow, filtered peephole the press in the US is giving you then you have no idea what FUD is when you hear it. I completely concur - that is why I read BBC and Al-Jazeera, as well as many others. Or are you saying there is a global conspiracy? That every media outlet on the planet coincidentally has a liberal bias? That when one takes up the keyboard and camera, one magically subsumes the soul of Hillary Clinton? If you really believe that is possible, that it is possible for everyone reporting the news to be co-opted, I would submit that you are no longer in full grasp of reality.
As you've perhaps noticed, they were not walking up to or sitting down on airplanes at the time. They made the arrests before that stage, but only after they were comfortable with having as many of the people in the cell as possible accounted for. If they'd acted sooner, they may have lost more of the cell.
It also gives them better evidence to get actual convictions (as opposed to life in Gitmo without trial), and, depending on where they sprung the trap (I do not know the details) it may have dramatically increased their ability to control the situation - an airport is a much easier environment to control than, say, all of London.
Cynicism in the US is reaching an all-time high. Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does. We need more effective ways of countering the enemy's FUD.
Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe what might help counter that cynicism is a government that doesn't lie to us, get things so horribly wrong, take extraordinary action like starting wars over those mistaken notions, and do utterly un-American things like suspending the Geneva Convention. Maybe it would help if they didn't miss events like Katrina and take pitifully inadequate action when they finally get it. Maybe we could have a government that realizes that taking away liberty is not the solution to "the terr'rists hate our liberty." Maybe more than two or three senators could take a stand on things like the rampant bribery in Washington (on both sides of the aisle). Maybe a few of our senators (on both sides of the aisle) could listen to the people instead of the RIAA, tobacco lobby, AMA, and ABA. Maybe a few of our senators could make a real issue of the fact that the ratio between executive compensation and mean compensation has risen from 100x to 400x in the past 20 years - even as those executives make a mockery of free market capitalism with all their elaborate barriers to entry. Maybe a few of our senators (on both sides of the aisle) could take a stand on the debt load (public and private) that means it is impossible for us to respond to an economic crisis, should one arise, right now. Maybe, even if we got none of that, maybe they could at least stop lying to cover up or spin their lies, mistakes, and dishonoring of our government and economic system. Maybe they could at least stand up like real men and women, admit they have been off in outer space, and face the music.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the kind of flag-waving, alert level pumping, what about the childrening, three thousand deaths from terrorism is more important than three million from other causesing, look, something shiny-ing, trust us blindly-ing, counter-FUD you seem to be proposing, but what the hell, maybe we could also get a little honor and duty, or at least a little accountability, from the government.
At the very least do your searching through an engine that is separate to your ISP.
Your ISP has access to everything you do online unless you're using an encrypted channel like SSL. Your HTTP requests go through your ISPs routers, which see all. Not just search terms, everything. Cox will see this submission when I send it through, and has seen each preview. Cox sees every email I send, including the full content and any attachments. Some ISPs may not be recording it, but for AOL a big part of their business is selling aggregated data to advertisers, and enterprise grade storage costs a few dollars a gig. They'd be stupid to throw away HTTP requests, and I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that they are not. At least until we have laws that require them to. But then, I think we're more like to have laws that require them to keep the data. The EU already does.
Everything you do online is watched. It's just a question of whether you can trust your ISP. We currently lack any serious accountability for privacy breaches. The public is blissfully ignorant, and the government, far from promoting privacy, actually wants the data. In fact, depending on how far you think Epic/Carnivore/TIA goes, they already have it. Your phone records are protected by federal law, and they have those. What of data that isn't protected? Do you think they don't have it?
they have stated that they are taking steps so that it won't happen again.
That is not enough. It is one thing when you get caught kicking a dog to say, "I won't kick the dog again." It is another, and far more noble, thing to say, "I will begin actively campaigning for the ASPCA." There has to be some accountability; not necessarily punishment, but retribution. For example, AOL could take steps to prevent any company from doing this again (promoting corporations to have data privacy built into their customer contract, lobbying for data purge laws, lobbying for privacy rights acts). If they do not, then they have done nothing but say, "We will feign remorse when we get caught." That is not good enough.
He claims there is no crime on the tape, fine, then show it and be done with it.
He has refused to publish the video because he believes the Fed wants to identify the dissidents that he caught on tape. Given that he believes (and I think reasonably so) that the Fed is harrassing him because of his political views, it seems reasonable for him to believe that the Fed wants those identities not to pursue actual crimes, but so they can harrass the dissidents.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't find where it states how much tax is paid from the State of Alaska for the oil pumped here.
Can you expand on this for me? I'm curious, because it's a complex issue. Alaska was purchased by the Fed, and I think it is reasonable, therefore, to see the oil in Alaska as,at least in part, a US owned resource. But that in itself is an interesting question - who gets the money for the mineral rights? Some of the drilling is on national land, does that money go to the Fed? Is any of the drilling on state land? Who gets that money? Is any on private land? Who gets that money?
It seems that the US, which purchased the land, should get something from the mineral rights. Saying that all taxes on oil paid by Alaska are inherently moneys owed Alaska is overly simplified. If the US gets 100% of the money from mineral rights, then it might be obvious that Alaska is owed something. If Alaska gets 100% from the mineral rights, I think a very strong argument could be made that Alaska should be paying something to the US, perhaps in taxes, on that money.
Ted Stevens, honorable US Senator from Alasak
You mean Alaska has an honorable Senator with the same name as the bridge guy? What are the odds?
How do you create a market for a product, and make money of a product that has a huge initial creative investment, but then no manufacturing cost, and is in infinite supply?
What is the product you are attempting to sell? What question are you asking?
Consider how most software engineers make money. We are performance artists. We are paid to perform a creative act. Most of the world's software (in terms of lines) is never sold on a per-copy basis. Most lines of code are written on a performance basis; custom enterprise code.
Historically, this is also how musicians were paid. It is how most musicians are paid even today (far more musicians play in bar bands than have record deals). It is an extremely efficient economic model, because it is a free market model. Most musicians exchange their time performing music for compensation; playing out in bars across the country. A musician's time is a naturally limited commodity, and there is demand for it. Hence, there is a natural price. That price is reached almost perfectly in our currency-based free-market economy.
One interesting recent development in this model is the ability to distribute music inexpensively. This grants the performing musician the ability to advertise for a very low price, recently approaching zero with the advent of the Internet. Musicians can now audition for gigs in distant cities at the drop of an email. They can build their local audience by giving away CDs at their shows - CDs that can be produced for far less than the total cost of producing and broadcasting a television, or even radio, commercial. (for additional material here, consider the potential for performance musicians to advertise by having their music played on the radio, and consider how the relationship between the record labels and the radio stations may affect that channel)
In the past 100 years, another model of trade in the music industry has evolved; the sale of copies of performances. It is backed by a government enforced fiat monopoly. That is, it is not a free market model. The model remained fairly practical for the first 60 or 70 years, while the cost of duplication for the home consumer was high. As long as the cost of duplication was high for the majority of customers, the inefficiency of the monopoly was hidden. The monopoly price did not dramatically diverge from the consumer's perceived value, because the cost of small-scale reproduction was dramatically higher than the cost of large-scale reproduction. The monopoly market has always been enormously inefficient, but that inefficiency was hidden by the fact that the vast majority of consumers percieved themselves as paying for the duplication. The efficiencies of scale overwhelmed the inefficiency of the fiat monopoly.
Now this is all changing. (for more material here, consider the lobbying and legislation that accompanied the invention of radio, and the subsequent symbiotic trust that has developed between radio and the record labels)
After radio, the next big exposure of the fiat monopoly's inherent inefficiency came with audio and video cassettes. Another round of legal wrangling occured, but it was slightly different - Washington came out more on the side of the fiat monopolists this time. They instituted stricter copyright infringement legislation.
In this, the latest round, cost of duplication has effectively hit zero. The inherent inefficiency of the fiat monopoly is now completely exposed to most of the target market of the music industry. Once again, there has been a great deal of wrangling in Washington. And it has shifted further in favor of the fiat monopolists. It has shifted so far, in fact, that many more consumers than during any previous shift are engaging in civil disobedience.
All of which is to say, are you sure you are asking the right question? Should the question be, "How do we make this inherently anti-free-market model work?" Or should it be, "Why are we using police force to artificially support an economically inefficient model,
I know a lot of MMORPG players and not one of them are still playing WoW - which is strange because the sampling of the people I know has pretty well tracked player populations for every previous MMORPG over the past six to seven years I've been playing them.
Where are all these WoW players and what are they doing while they are logged in all these months since the game went live?
I play WoW in a decent sized guild. A solid 50% of them are not gamers. My brother is the perfect example. He plays two games on the computer - WoW, and a poker tutorial game.
Which may suggest the answer to your question: You know a lot of hard-core gamers, to whom WoW may not be attractive. It is EQ easy-mode, after all. But, to a great many people like my brother who grew up with video games but were never hard-core about it, WoW is a pleasant distraction for an hour or three a week.
I was once a hard-core gamer, but I got distracted by other shiny things along the way. Now I play WoW a bit, and it's fun. Hard-core me probably wouldn't have liked it much - there is too much chance, not enough reward for mad skillz. Casual me finds it to be just about right.
Other than following Sturgeon's Law, what quality problems [does the American movie industry have]?
I just looked over your comment history and found that you contribute nothing but these pitiful one-line jabs. If you are actually interested in an answer to your question, write something poignant and on-topic. Challenge me. Make me think. Show me you're using that lump on your shoulders for something more than a hat rack.
we needed to pay for IP because the only movies that'd be left would be horrible pieces of crap like this.
Great movies aren't always about great CGI and slick editing. Check out Hard Boiled or The Killer (Woo/Fat) or Clerks for examples. Which is not to say that this documentary is a great movie, but that even if copyright infringement did lead to a decline in production values, it would not necessarily lead to a decline in the quality of movies. The sterile and prohibitive movie industry in America has its own quality problems. Different than independant film, but not necessarily better or worse. A point made in the documentary is that the money has shifted the focus in Hollywood from creative expression to putting butts in seats. When you primarily serve the latter, you often short-change the former.
If you feel that good production values are necessary to tell a good story, you are missing out on a lot of great film.
The only result is that fair use will get marginalized and ignored.
You are mistaken. This documentary is not advocating the retention of fair use rights under existing copyright. It is advocating a change in copyright law. It may not be a position you agree with. It may not be a position I agree with. But if you see this as a poor job of advocating fair use, you have missed the point.
You may think it is all about getting something for nothing. Some people think fair use is all about getting something for nothing. Neither is the case. Both are far more complex issues. And as long as there is not understanding, there will not be resolution.
Cable and the internet has diminished broadcast influence, but there's plenty of concentrated power left as this Barney case illustrates. Ultimately, free culture will level the playing field.
Not necessarily. If we reach a point where the Internet is not a level field, then we will be right back where we were twenty years ago: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. Given that the people in the US with the money and power are directly threatened by free competition, that the people who benefit most from it (We The People) are predominately ignorant of what is happening, and that even those who do know what is happening are too comfortable to make real sacrifices (eg: jail, bodily harm, death) to defend it, how long do you think the free Internet is going to last?
"1. A system that facilitates self-regulation of a social network comprising: a network monitoring component that watches user behavior on the social network; and an asset allocation component that allocates or re-allocates one or more assets among one or more network users based at least in part on whether the user behavior is desirable."
As I read that, the Slashdot moderation system infringes.
Indeed the Slashdot mod system is prior art. But there's a much more clear-cut example: Bittorrent. And if you want something more historic, how about going back to the BBSs of the 80s that had upload/download ratios.
Reuters is reporting that AOL Chief Technical Officer Maureen Govern has resigned from the company. Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough?
One executive fired? And they don't even have the balls to call it fired? (not that anyone ever does any more) Not enough by a damned site.
She'll have a new job inside of a week, and she probably got fifty million in parting gifts. Fire every person in the hierarchy that did it, after cancelling all their golden parachutes. Then put $100 million into efforts to reform corporate executive corruption and incompetence, and another $100 million into promoting serious privacy standards and legislation. Then maybe we can have an article asking whether it was enough.
When you have a total compensation package that is one thousand times that of the average engineer, and you are so incompetent that the people working for you either don't know enough about information science to grasp that this was a breach of privacy, or don't realize that it is important to your customers, merely getting fired is not even close. If she could screw up this monstrously, imagine what else she must have gotten wrong. It goes a long way to explain their stock price.
You really can't/shouldn't make software/licenes a moral warfare or a means for social reform.
I think you are about to contradict yourself.
People want the freedom to decide how their long and hard hours of work should be distributed.
Precisely. Assuming you support the current state of copyright, the terms of redistribution should be the creator's choice. But that seems to contradict your statement above, that some licenses should not be used.
Interesting - the first was an emotional appeal using polarizing terms like "moral warfare" and "social reform". The second statement is a more rational statement about the rights of the creator. The first, the emotional appeal, is clearly in opposition to GPL 3. The latter, the rational position, is in favor of it. I wonder if this pattern will hold throughout your post...
GPL 3 is basicly a way to make the midless Stallman followers to be more zealot about the things Stallman disaproves of.
Emotional appeal. Opposed to GPL 3.
As an aside, GPL 3 is an option between BSD and proprietary (and between GPL 2 and proprietary). Proprietary allows zero redistribution, and so implicitly includes all the restrictions of GPL 3. You cannot take MS Windows and redistribute it for use in a DRM system any more than you can GPL 3 software. Redistribution is the only thing covered by GPL. It is the only thing that can be covered, because it uses the same copyright laws that proprietary uses.
People who actually can think for themselves will/should read the licenes and choose the ones they like the best or write their own if there is to manything they really don't want to use.
While there is an emotional element in here, the core statement, "People should read the licenses and choose the ones they like the best..." is a rational statement. And it supports the existence of GPL 3.
The reasons for GPL is a fairly standard open source license that programmers can use and not have to worry about writting up.
Another rational statement that supports GPL 3.
But if they make it so Stallman then they just can't use it.
Another emotional appeal, and once again opposed to GPL 3.
as a developer I want the freedome to do what I want with my code and decide who should do what with it.
Again a rational statement of the rights that you feel should be granted to the creator. And again, it supports the existence of GPL 3.
If I choose that GNU is good then I will use it, if not then I want an other choice.
And again, rational statement, in support of GPL 3.
Stallman is moving CopyLeft to CopyFarLeft.
And finally back to emotional appeal with the polarizing term, "FarLeft." To my utter surprise, it is opposed to GPL 3.
Every rational statement in your post supports the existence of GPL 3 and the right of the creator to decide whether to use it. All your statements in opposition are emotional appeals using polarizing terms. You're halfway to the world of science (which is a damned site better than most of the people in the world). I believe in you, I think you can make it; drop the emotional polarization and make the jump to fully rational. We need more good people like you.
"...exhaustively tests whether you comply with the standard or not."
A test suite cannot tell you if an implementation is compliant
Yes, it can. If the question is boolean, then the test pointed to by grandparent definitely can give an objective answer. Currently, every browser I know of would fail, but it can give an answer.
or to what degree an implementation is compliant.
Yes, it can. It can give you a consistent answer on the number of passed and failed tests. That number may be biased for a given single run, but it can give a consistent answer, so it can be used to test relative compliance. It may give a fuzzy response that is open to interpretation, but I would bet that when testing different versions of the same browser, the answer would almost always be clear. It would be something like this:
IE6: Passed; 77. Failed; 39.
IE7: Passed; 92, Failed; 24.
IE7 Relative to IE6:
Passed in IE6, Failed in IE7; 2.
Passed in IE7, Failed in IE6; 17.
"One of the things I said in my post is that I think it's very difficult, if not impossible, to have an analysis of exactly where we are as a number with supporting or complying with CSS"
Actually, it's easy. There's an example of the numbers above. Are the numbers fuzzy? Yes. Does it provide, "an analysis of exactly where you are"? Yes. It is, "an analysis" and it is based on "exactly where you are." Is the result fuzzy? Of course. Every test of every human endeavor in history has either had a loose question or given a fuzzy result. Now stop being a sissy and answer the damned question.
"we really only did standards improvements - particularly CSS and HTML improvements. That was really the largest focus of our platform work overall."
If that is the case (though when someone uses "really" twice in two sentences without providing supporting evidence I think he doth protest too much), and this guy really is involved in the project, then he should have those numbers tatooed on his inner thigh. If CSS and HTML compliance really was the largest focus of the largest software company ever, he would at least be able to say something. He would be able to say, "I don't think these numbers are perfect, but here's what we get on the official test suite."
If MS really were focusing on those tests, even if he really believed that taking number passed over number failed was such a great injustice, they would have those numbers printed in 120 point font and hung on the wall of the developer area. He could have said, "Well, I can't give you a percentage, because percentages are inherently subjective - they weight every test the same which does not necessarily reflect the value of each test to the total user experience. And though the results are subjective, the tests are objective, and we track them like a hawk. Hey - we're the biggest software company in the world. Software loves tests. So, while I reiterate that these numbers are't perfect, I can tell you that IE7 now passes 17 tests that IE6 did not, and failed 2 that IE6 passed, using the W3C's standard set of CSS 2.1 tests. You can get the specific list of test results at www.microsoft.com/ie7-css-test/."
Or he can say none of that, and I will remain unclear on Microsoft's current view on standards. I won't claim that I know them to be as bad as they have been, simply that what this guy says is sound and fury signifying nothing. Which is all that GP was saying.
He claims that this particular course is their "largest focus", a course which they have repeatedly faltered from, with apparent intent, in the past. He says there is no way of providing a number, without even acknowledging the existence of the official set of tests. Not even to say they suck. Either he doesn't know they exist, or he doesn't feel they are important, or he feels the results would leave the audience nonplussed. The one thing we can say for sure is not the case is what he is implicitly claiming; that they are deeply interested in passing the tests, that they always know the results for the latest build, and that they are proud of their accomplishments.
"Take-Two has until five o'clock p.m., Eastern time, Monday, August 14, 2006, to inform me in writing that it will forthwith provide me with a copy of Bully so that I and others can analyze it to determine whether it still poses a threat of copycat violence in our schools"
At the risk of sounding AOL:
Oooh - Me too please!
Their response? "The new software should produce exactly the same numbers as the old software." "But the old numbers are WRONG!" "That does not matter, the new software should produce exactly the same numbers as the old software."
Laugh, cry. Had the exact same thing (though with advertising conversion rates, not interest) on a different project from the one I noted above. Spent a month on the analysis and statistics. Learned all about lognormal distributions. The answers were beautiful. <shrug>
So... those guys are losing one percent of their money in their financial calculations whenever they try to use thirds?
It's actually not something closely tied to the finances.
True Story:
.33. .33 is .99.
Business: We need to be able to store thirds, eighths, and hundredths of a unit in the same field. Then we need to add them up, and it has to be exact.
Developer: OK, one second... cool. We'll store the number of 600ths.
Business: 600ths? What is a 600th? Just use 100ths.
Developer: You said you need thirds, right?
Business: Yeah, use
Developer: You said it needs to be exact, right?
Business: Yes.
Developer: 3 *
Business: Oh, yeah. Just round that.
Developer: But that's not exact, and the error can be cumulative.
Business: It's close enough.
Developer: You know, we could store 600ths for accuracy, and display 100ths for user-friendliness. Would that help?
Business: Just use 100ths.
Developer: Right. Thanks. <bangs head on desk>
The field is stored as hundredths.
I know that the problem the article is talking about is the 1.0+1.0=2.000001 problem - but this story is still funny.
Liberals aren't any better thoough.
You seem to have mistaken me for something I am not. A few quick notes:
I voted for McCain and Sheriff Joe (google him) in 2004.
I intend to support McCain for President in 2008.
I own guns, have a concealed carry license, and support the NRA.
I am an ardent supporter of free market capitalism, largely as identified by Ayn Rand.
I support GATT and NAFTA.
I am a software engineer, but support outsourcing.
I prefer small government, federalism, and a balanced budget.
I believe that the second ammendment is as important as the first, fourth, and fifth.
To your points:
# doesn't lie to us - humans lie and the government is staffed by humans
# get things so horribly wrong - humans err and the government is staffed by humans
# rampant bribery in Washington - see the first two
That was the point of this thread, was it not? The question of whether we trust our govern-ors? Are you honestly suggesting that the govern-ors and the government are separate entities? You mention in another response that the hive-mind magically makes corrupt individuals reach principled cooperation - is it impossible in your mind that the hive mind populated by the corrupt could acheive greater heights of corruption than the sum of its parts? Or are you suggesting that we should throw up our hands and accept our fate? The latter is completely contrary to the founding principles of this great nation (which currently is being steered in a number of wrong directions).
take extraordinary action like starting wars over those mistaken notions - hindsight is 20/20. most of those notions are actually proven correct though. But you won't listen or research.
The reason given to the American People was WMD. The only WMDs we have found are the ones we sold them for Iran/Iraq, were not in servicable condition, and most were beyond the point where they could be made servicable.
Maybe it would help if they didn't miss events like Katrina - we actually did a wonderful job
You are out of your mind.
during Katrina you just have unrealistic expectations as a poor grasp of the logistics.
Asking the head of FEMA to interrupt his dinner is unrealistic? The breadth of the failure lead to a Senate inquiry and a bunch of findings, including the restructuring of the hierarchy to FEMA. Everyone (except, apparently, you) says it was a failure.
If the only truth you glean is through the narrow, filtered peephole the press in the US is giving you then you have no idea what FUD is when you hear it.
I completely concur - that is why I read BBC and Al-Jazeera, as well as many others. Or are you saying there is a global conspiracy? That every media outlet on the planet coincidentally has a liberal bias? That when one takes up the keyboard and camera, one magically subsumes the soul of Hillary Clinton? If you really believe that is possible, that it is possible for everyone reporting the news to be co-opted, I would submit that you are no longer in full grasp of reality.
Very well said.
As you've perhaps noticed, they were not walking up to or sitting down on airplanes at the time. They made the arrests before that stage, but only after they were comfortable with having as many of the people in the cell as possible accounted for. If they'd acted sooner, they may have lost more of the cell.
It also gives them better evidence to get actual convictions (as opposed to life in Gitmo without trial), and, depending on where they sprung the trap (I do not know the details) it may have dramatically increased their ability to control the situation - an airport is a much easier environment to control than, say, all of London.
At the risk of sounding like an AOL user, Me Too!
How did that guy get modded down?
Cynicism in the US is reaching an all-time high. Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does. We need more effective ways of countering the enemy's FUD.
Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe what might help counter that cynicism is a government that doesn't lie to us, get things so horribly wrong, take extraordinary action like starting wars over those mistaken notions, and do utterly un-American things like suspending the Geneva Convention. Maybe it would help if they didn't miss events like Katrina and take pitifully inadequate action when they finally get it. Maybe we could have a government that realizes that taking away liberty is not the solution to "the terr'rists hate our liberty." Maybe more than two or three senators could take a stand on things like the rampant bribery in Washington (on both sides of the aisle). Maybe a few of our senators (on both sides of the aisle) could listen to the people instead of the RIAA, tobacco lobby, AMA, and ABA. Maybe a few of our senators could make a real issue of the fact that the ratio between executive compensation and mean compensation has risen from 100x to 400x in the past 20 years - even as those executives make a mockery of free market capitalism with all their elaborate barriers to entry. Maybe a few of our senators (on both sides of the aisle) could take a stand on the debt load (public and private) that means it is impossible for us to respond to an economic crisis, should one arise, right now. Maybe, even if we got none of that, maybe they could at least stop lying to cover up or spin their lies, mistakes, and dishonoring of our government and economic system. Maybe they could at least stand up like real men and women, admit they have been off in outer space, and face the music.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the kind of flag-waving, alert level pumping, what about the childrening, three thousand deaths from terrorism is more important than three million from other causesing, look, something shiny-ing, trust us blindly-ing, counter-FUD you seem to be proposing, but what the hell, maybe we could also get a little honor and duty, or at least a little accountability, from the government.
So, if you don't apply the patches, then what?
Well, I'm not sure what happens if you don't apply the patches, but we do have an idea of what happens if you ask questions like that on a blog.
(that's mostly a joke... at least for now)
The thing about a sentence which starts with 'Although...' is that the second half is usually contradictory to the first half.
That means that you need some context to be able to extract any useful meaning from it
"Although there was no personally identifiable data linked to these accounts, we're absolutely not defending this."
Why should we expect any different?
Indeed. That is the million dollar question. Or, perhaps, "How can we move our world toward a state where we expect something different?"
At the very least do your searching through an engine that is separate to your ISP.
Your ISP has access to everything you do online unless you're using an encrypted channel like SSL. Your HTTP requests go through your ISPs routers, which see all. Not just search terms, everything. Cox will see this submission when I send it through, and has seen each preview. Cox sees every email I send, including the full content and any attachments. Some ISPs may not be recording it, but for AOL a big part of their business is selling aggregated data to advertisers, and enterprise grade storage costs a few dollars a gig. They'd be stupid to throw away HTTP requests, and I'd lay 20 to 1 odds that they are not. At least until we have laws that require them to. But then, I think we're more like to have laws that require them to keep the data. The EU already does.
Everything you do online is watched. It's just a question of whether you can trust your ISP. We currently lack any serious accountability for privacy breaches. The public is blissfully ignorant, and the government, far from promoting privacy, actually wants the data. In fact, depending on how far you think Epic/Carnivore/TIA goes, they already have it. Your phone records are protected by federal law, and they have those. What of data that isn't protected? Do you think they don't have it?
they have stated that they are taking steps so that it won't happen again.
That is not enough. It is one thing when you get caught kicking a dog to say, "I won't kick the dog again." It is another, and far more noble, thing to say, "I will begin actively campaigning for the ASPCA." There has to be some accountability; not necessarily punishment, but retribution. For example, AOL could take steps to prevent any company from doing this again (promoting corporations to have data privacy built into their customer contract, lobbying for data purge laws, lobbying for privacy rights acts). If they do not, then they have done nothing but say, "We will feign remorse when we get caught." That is not good enough.
He claims there is no crime on the tape, fine, then show it and be done with it.
He has refused to publish the video because he believes the Fed wants to identify the dissidents that he caught on tape. Given that he believes (and I think reasonably so) that the Fed is harrassing him because of his political views, it seems reasonable for him to believe that the Fed wants those identities not to pursue actual crimes, but so they can harrass the dissidents.