The plantiffs (recording industry) would probably not be able ot show the judge that there are reasonable grounds for them to be able to anyalyze records of indivduals that are not associated with the lawsuit. If you are involved in a personal injury lawsuit, you can't subpoena the hospitals entire patient file.
I didn't say it was a valid argument, just a possible counter-argument. To play devil's advocate, what if in your hypothetical personal injury the only information known is that it was Patient 0149381?
Shaw lawyer Charles Scott, of Lax O'Sullivan Scott, said the cable company has a duty to protect the privacy of its customers, not to become a "private investigator" for the music industry by being forced, at its own expense, to analyze and hand over subscriber information
I can hear the next argument: "Hand all of your data over and we'll analyze it...."
Did anyone wonder where the Selective Service would get your skills info from? Last I knew, they had my date of birth, SSN and the address I was at when I was 18. What kind of data mining will they be the beneficiaries of to find out that Joe's an IT geek?
Since we're sending so much IT to India let's draft the Indians to do compulsory IT....Like my momma always told me, everything has its responsibilities.
I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon. In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years. The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of. If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.
Modest lad, isn't he? I'm always suspicious about people who feel the need to have such a self-serving description...as there's usually snake oil to follow.
"...even large companies are not above a little fraud now and then."
Seems like lots of large companies these days seem to specialize in fraud. I won't mention Halliburton or anyone else accused of defrauding the US government.
I wonder how much better the QT/Sorenson and QT/MPEG4 (and maybe divX, dunno if there's an encoder) testing would have been if they were done on a Mac and the Velocity Engine could have been utilized?
Jokes aside, why do people put up with intrusive advertising as a given? How much of your money spent on a 1 litre soft drink goes directly towards advertising the product back to you? I read some time ago that "big 3" North American automakers spend approximately US$1500 (averaged) on advertising for each vehicle sold.
Very interesting. I've oft wondered how much of a pair of tennis shoes, a soda, a car, or common foodstuffs (chips, Big Macs, etc.) were amortized advertising costs. I suspect I'd be scared at the answer. But to answer your question, how the #$%! do we avoid it and not end up in a mountain cabin being a recluse?
I don't use RealPlayer at all. If for some reason a website offers only RealPlayer videos I just do without. not a big deal for me. much more annoying, as you say, to remove the tentacles of Real after you've installed their "free" player.
That's ironic, because that's what I do if something is WMA-only. And if I something's offered in both streams, I'll choose Real every time. And if I want to uninstall RealPlayer, I'd just drag the app to the trash and empty it. It's gone. Wait, you can't do that on Windows???
Why select a slower, more expensive platform and take on the cost of porting one's in-house software to yet another platform, when multi-processor AMD-64 chips running GNU/Linux are a dime a dozen?
When my Dad got his first computer, he listened to my brother instead of me so he ended up with a PC instead of the Mac I recommended (and have). He said: "Why does someone who work with Windows all day have Macs at home?" "For the same reason that someone who shovels out stables takes a shower at the end of the day."
I went and saw RoTK yesterday. No intermission. Oww oww oww! Watching it on DVD with a well-stocked fridge and a pause button is the way to go.
After the 1st time, maybe. I, too, saw RoTK yesterday. Had to see it in the theater before it went to the Grey Havens, too. No way my house could have a picture like that, nor sound like that (though we try!). I guess I lose geek points by waiting so long, but since I saw it with my wife I guess I lose even more!
Sorry but alot of time has been wasted spent on taking Carbon and making it a first-class citizen with Cocoa instead of focusing on Cocoa.
That is changing with each revision as more Cocoa is implemented and the OS becomes more seemless.
Politics played the most important part of the direction OS X has taken.
Yeah, and I'm sure that Apple's not happy about that, either. But without all of the carbon work there wouldn't be anything Adobe or Microsoft. Yeah, the slashdot crowd might cheer the latter, but.... Because of Adobe, Carbon will be around forever. There's no way in hell that they can (or will) port their common code with Windows over to Objective C.
Some interesting things in this order: SCO doesn't have to provide anything until IBM releases "about 245" products that make up the Dynix/AIX family to them. It also may have to provide the code to the OS's themselves. The judge state some prior cases as why SCO should be allowed to examine IBM's internal code.
Let's see, SCO alleges that IBM is infringing on their code and they know of specific examples (how this whole thing started). So why would/should IBM have to provide anything? Wouldn't SCO already have it/know about it? And if (heaven forbid) SCO wins or stays alive as a company, aren't they now privy to IBM's trade secrets? It seems to be that the judge is going along with the "if you throw enough sh*t some of it might stick to the wall" by giving SCO plenty of walls.
It was a "primary" election - voters were deciding who should run as the Democrat and Republican candidates in the November election. Only Republicans vote for the Republican Party candidate and only Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
Here in ole Virginny we have open primaries. Anyone can show up and vote in the other party's primary. So, effectively, there was nothing stopping every Republican from showing up to vote for Al Sharpton or someone they'd love to see win last month's Democratic primary, especially since they wouldn't be wasting a vote at all since there was nothing else to vote for. It's really too scary of a system. It made it easy for me (a newly former Republican) to vote in it...too easy.
You gotta be kidding me! This isn't an intellectual property issue, it's a EULA-violation issue. I'd be laughing my ass off if it wasn't for the fact that I'm seriously pissed off about Auto Zone (long time customer).
In a way that's good if it is about EULAs and licensing. EULAs need to be scrutinized and tested in a court of law...same as the GPL. The GPL to be ratified (can't think of a better word), and the usurious terms of most EULAs to be deemed commerce violations or whatever.
Part of it, I'm sure, is that Virginia isn't using Diebold machines.
Are you sure? I thought Fairfax _was_ using Diebold. And there were problems with last Fall's election (VA is unusual in that state offices are elected on odd-numbered years). At least 6 electronic voting machines failed, needed to be repalced/ rebooted,...
Yeah, last fall's elections had problems, but the primary last month didn't...or if they did, they were well-covered up.
It was not a Diebold machine. I looked very carefully at it, but not enough to remember what it was.:-)
Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.
I would say that this made me glad that I moved from Maryland to Virginia, but as an American I'm outraged on general principles. We did have electronic voting in our primary last month (at least in Fairfax County, VA) and we had none of these problems. Part of it, I'm sure, is that Virginia isn't using Diebold machines.
Oh, THAT'S analogous. Right. To make this work they'd have to have a copy or three of the song stored and you'd have to go check it in or out, or sit there and listen to it in their central room. Or, they'd have to deliver a copy of the magazine to every student, to follow my analogy.
Which is closer to the music subscription and which don't they do, Einsteins on the Libraries?
...how on earth did they quantify that "10,000 tosses" number? Methinks they might have pulled that number out of thin air.
Not quite. The key phrase is: "would become aware of such a small bias".
How do you become aware of a bias in a sequence of coin tosses? (Let's assume the coin starts at heads when tossed.) 6 heads in 10 tosses would not be cause for suspicion, but more than 8 heads in 10 would be: you'd have only a 1.07% chance of that happening if the toss were fair, so you'd be more likely to conclude that the toss is biased.
Let's say, arbitrarily, that you'd decide a coin toss was biased if you flipped it 10,000 times and saw a proportion of heads that was really unlikely -- say, less than 1% chance of seeing that many tails or fewer if the toss was fair. Using the example from the article, if you make 10,000 fair tosses and saw less than 4884 tails, that's sufficient evidence for bias by that criterion.
Making a 10,000 biased tosses (with 51% probability of heads) has a about a 37.8% chance of deailing 4884 tails of fewer. So that's what the article means: if you made 10,000 of these biased tosses, you'd have about a 1 in 3 chance of observing a result that was pretty suspicions (by the criterion of seeing something that had only 1 1% chance of occurring if the toss were fair).
Remember, kids: math is fun!
I'm no math geek, but the way I read it is that over 10,000 tosses, 51% (5100) would be heads and 49% (4900) tails. An observer wouldn't be able to detect any bias. I just don't see how that's possible with such a slight statistical bias. You can calculate it, sure, but that's not how it was presented in the original quote.
Slashdot Mirror
The plantiffs (recording industry) would probably not be able ot show the judge that there are reasonable grounds for them to be able to anyalyze records of indivduals that are not associated with the lawsuit. If you are involved in a personal injury lawsuit, you can't subpoena the hospitals entire patient file.
I didn't say it was a valid argument, just a possible counter-argument. To play devil's advocate, what if in your hypothetical personal injury the only information known is that it was Patient 0149381?
Shaw lawyer Charles Scott, of Lax O'Sullivan Scott, said the cable company has a duty to protect the privacy of its customers, not to become a "private investigator" for the music industry by being forced, at its own expense, to analyze and hand over subscriber information
I can hear the next argument: "Hand all of your data over and we'll analyze it...."
Did anyone wonder where the Selective Service would get your skills info from? Last I knew, they had my date of birth, SSN and the address I was at when I was 18. What kind of data mining will they be the beneficiaries of to find out that Joe's an IT geek?
Since we're sending so much IT to India let's draft the Indians to do compulsory IT....Like my momma always told me, everything has its responsibilities.
I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon. In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years. The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of. If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.
Modest lad, isn't he? I'm always suspicious about people who feel the need to have such a self-serving description...as there's usually snake oil to follow.
....yeah, like I'd trade steaks for curry. Not!
"...even large companies are not above a little fraud now and then."
Seems like lots of large companies these days seem to specialize in fraud. I won't mention Halliburton or anyone else accused of defrauding the US government.
I wonder how much better the QT/Sorenson and QT/MPEG4 (and maybe divX, dunno if there's an encoder) testing would have been if they were done on a Mac and the Velocity Engine could have been utilized?
Jokes aside, why do people put up with intrusive advertising as a given? How much of your money spent on a 1 litre soft drink goes directly towards advertising the product back to you? I read some time ago that "big 3" North American automakers spend approximately US$1500 (averaged) on advertising for each vehicle sold.
Very interesting. I've oft wondered how much of a pair of tennis shoes, a soda, a car, or common foodstuffs (chips, Big Macs, etc.) were amortized advertising costs. I suspect I'd be scared at the answer.
But to answer your question, how the #$%! do we avoid it and not end up in a mountain cabin being a recluse?
I don't use RealPlayer at all. If for some reason a website offers only RealPlayer videos I just do without. not a big deal for me. much more annoying, as you say, to remove the tentacles of Real after you've installed their "free" player.
That's ironic, because that's what I do if something is WMA-only. And if I something's offered in both streams, I'll choose Real every time.
And if I want to uninstall RealPlayer, I'd just drag the app to the trash and empty it. It's gone. Wait, you can't do that on Windows???
Why select a slower, more expensive platform and take on the cost of porting one's in-house software to yet another platform, when multi-processor AMD-64 chips running GNU/Linux are a dime a dozen?
Here's my dime...need my shipping address?
When my Dad got his first computer, he listened to my brother instead of me so he ended up with a PC instead of the Mac I recommended (and have). He said:
"Why does someone who work with Windows all day have Macs at home?"
"For the same reason that someone who shovels out stables takes a shower at the end of the day."
I went and saw RoTK yesterday. No intermission. Oww oww oww! Watching it on DVD with a well-stocked fridge and a pause button is the way to go.
After the 1st time, maybe. I, too, saw RoTK yesterday. Had to see it in the theater before it went to the Grey Havens, too. No way my house could have a picture like that, nor sound like that (though we try!).
I guess I lose geek points by waiting so long, but since I saw it with my wife I guess I lose even more!
Timothy said it best:
from the culture-is-a-strong-word dept.
Sorry but alot of time has been wasted spent on taking Carbon and making it a first-class citizen with Cocoa instead of focusing on Cocoa.
That is changing with each revision as more Cocoa is implemented and the OS becomes more seemless.
Politics played the most important part of the direction OS X has taken.
Yeah, and I'm sure that Apple's not happy about that, either. But without all of the carbon work there wouldn't be anything Adobe or Microsoft. Yeah, the slashdot crowd might cheer the latter, but....
Because of Adobe, Carbon will be around forever. There's no way in hell that they can (or will) port their common code with Windows over to Objective C.
The average buy was $155
:-)
Crikey, thats a lot of penis enlargement pills.
I feel quite inadequate now.
Yeah, but your bank account thanks you.
Some interesting things in this order: SCO doesn't have to provide anything until IBM releases "about 245" products that make up the Dynix/AIX family to them. It also may have to provide the code to the OS's themselves. The judge state some prior cases as why SCO should be allowed to examine IBM's internal code.
Let's see, SCO alleges that IBM is infringing on their code and they know of specific examples (how this whole thing started). So why would/should IBM have to provide anything? Wouldn't SCO already have it/know about it? And if (heaven forbid) SCO wins or stays alive as a company, aren't they now privy to IBM's trade secrets? It seems to be that the judge is going along with the "if you throw enough sh*t some of it might stick to the wall" by giving SCO plenty of walls.
Sorry to see you have lost your way... Well, we'll welcome you back once you've come to your senses.
:) )
Or when the Republican Party does, whichever comes first. (Those who vote c) neither of the above will probably win.
It was a "primary" election - voters were deciding who should run as the Democrat and Republican candidates in the November election. Only Republicans vote for the Republican Party candidate and only Democrats vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
Here in ole Virginny we have open primaries. Anyone can show up and vote in the other party's primary. So, effectively, there was nothing stopping every Republican from showing up to vote for Al Sharpton or someone they'd love to see win last month's Democratic primary, especially since they wouldn't be wasting a vote at all since there was nothing else to vote for. It's really too scary of a system. It made it easy for me (a newly former Republican) to vote in it...too easy.
You gotta be kidding me! This isn't an intellectual property issue, it's a EULA-violation issue. I'd be laughing my ass off if it wasn't for the fact that I'm seriously pissed off about Auto Zone (long time customer).
In a way that's good if it is about EULAs and licensing. EULAs need to be scrutinized and tested in a court of law...same as the GPL. The GPL to be ratified (can't think of a better word), and the usurious terms of most EULAs to be deemed commerce violations or whatever.
They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"
Huh? That can't be right. How could they be suing EV1 when they've already paid their extort^K^K^K^Klicense money.
Part of it, I'm sure, is that Virginia isn't using Diebold machines. ...
:-)
Are you sure? I thought Fairfax _was_ using Diebold. And there were problems with last Fall's election (VA is unusual in that state offices are elected on odd-numbered years). At least 6 electronic voting machines failed, needed to be repalced/ rebooted,
Yeah, last fall's elections had problems, but the primary last month didn't...or if they did, they were well-covered up. It was not a Diebold machine. I looked very carefully at it, but not enough to remember what it was.
Among their surprises: all of Maryland's machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.
I would say that this made me glad that I moved from Maryland to Virginia, but as an American I'm outraged on general principles.
We did have electronic voting in our primary last month (at least in Fairfax County, VA) and we had none of these problems. Part of it, I'm sure, is that Virginia isn't using Diebold machines.
Sure they do. Its called a library.
Oh, THAT'S analogous. Right. To make this work they'd have to have a copy or three of the song stored and you'd have to go check it in or out, or sit there and listen to it in their central room.
Or, they'd have to deliver a copy of the magazine to every student, to follow my analogy.
Which is closer to the music subscription and which don't they do, Einsteins on the Libraries?
...how on earth did they quantify that "10,000 tosses" number? Methinks they might have pulled that number out of thin air.
Not quite. The key phrase is: "would become aware of such a small bias".
How do you become aware of a bias in a sequence of coin tosses? (Let's assume the coin starts at heads when tossed.) 6 heads in 10 tosses would not be cause for suspicion, but more than 8 heads in 10 would be: you'd have only a 1.07% chance of that happening if the toss were fair, so you'd be more likely to conclude that the toss is biased.
Let's say, arbitrarily, that you'd decide a coin toss was biased if you flipped it 10,000 times and saw a proportion of heads that was really unlikely -- say, less than 1% chance of seeing that many tails or fewer if the toss was fair. Using the example from the article, if you make 10,000 fair tosses and saw less than 4884 tails, that's sufficient evidence for bias by that criterion.
Making a 10,000 biased tosses (with 51% probability of heads) has a about a 37.8% chance of deailing 4884 tails of fewer. So that's what the article means: if you made 10,000 of these biased tosses, you'd have about a 1 in 3 chance of observing a result that was pretty suspicions (by the criterion of seeing something that had only 1 1% chance of occurring if the toss were fair).
Remember, kids: math is fun!
I'm no math geek, but the way I read it is that over 10,000 tosses, 51% (5100) would be heads and 49% (4900) tails. An observer wouldn't be able to detect any bias. I just don't see how that's possible with such a slight statistical bias. You can calculate it, sure, but that's not how it was presented in the original quote.