why do I get the feeling that Microsoft money is somehow behind this effort???
Oh shit! MS Money is now an autonomous agent manipulating the world of big business for its own sinister ends? I need to get a different checkbook program!
Demanding that people protect artifacts instead of people is what is sick.
I'm guessing that protecting artifacts and protecting people are not mutually exclusive, especially given the massive number of armed forces the US has there.
Non-zero is non-zero.
Zero is zero.
Non-zero is not zero.
Zero is not non-zero.
There is no essentially zero, practically zero, or virtually zero, just as there is no essentially non-zero, practically non-zero, or virtually non-zero. The odds, no matter how small, must be recognized.
It's definitely real. I've read the article in Discover, complete with a full page picture of intestines, spleens, and various other turkey pieces. Not a good idea to flip to while you're eating dinner.
Take suggestions from dumbasses?...Wow. There's a recipie for failure.
I have to think that it is not being suggested that software developers take design or implementation suggestions from dumbasses. That would be a bad idea. Instead, we are probably talking about listening to the dumbasses to find out what they want, then making that happen. That is a good idea. Give the dumbasses what they want, and they will use it. And keep in mind that just because a dumbass wants it doesn't mean it will be a bad product or inherently flawed in some way.
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!)
Two things wrong with this statement. Let me quickly clear things up:
(1) Really anyone is able to *ask* as Joshua did. It's just that not everyone gets a response like he did. Maybe this is just semantics, though.
(2) Joshua didn't ask to stop the rotation of the earth, but rather the movement of the sun across the sky. This proves that the earth *is* the center of the universe! But that's a whole other discussion.
dune, the humans won in that one, but it still bears mention
I don't remember anywhere in the Dune books a war between man and machine. Maybe you are referring to the Butlerian Jihad, in which all intelligent machines were wiped out, which actually took place before the first book did but is referenced throughout the series. Though I can't remember if that was humans versus machines or just humans versus other humans that had machines.
Either way, I think as geeks we have a tendency to forget that sci-fi is, by definition, not real. However, as geeks, we should be ashamed for forgetting that artificial intelligence is nowhere near a state where machines might pose any threat to humans. This is because of both the state of the art and the state of hardware capabilities.
It is little wonder that the brightest minds on our planet didn't/don't belive in a God, both Einstein and Stephen Hawking have both said they see no room for such an entity in the universe.
I've never actually heard this before (though I don't necessarily doubt it). Do you have any quotes or references for these two where they said something to that effect?
> instead, the [Michelson-Morley] experiment went completeley wrong,
> conclusively proved the lack of the cosmic
> ether, and Newton was kicked to the gutter
> (as an explanation for sub-macroscopic events)...
Sorry to nitpick, but this just isn't true. I did a research paper over these experiments and found that much of what many people believe about these experiments is simply wrong.
When the first experiments were done, everyone simply accepted that the accuracy of the experiment was compromised by any of the numerous obstacles the experimenter had to overcome. Even after the experiment was repeated several times, most dismissed the results as untrustworthy. Miller, who performed the experiment various times, actually DID find a postive ether drift. (Though he later admitted his experiment may have been flawed.)
The point is, no one considered these results as "disproving" classical physics until after Einstein had presented his theory. Thus, the ether drift experiments did not kick Newton to the gutter, but only served as a hindsight demonstration of what everyone had by then come to accept.
Like most theories, relativity did not gain unanimous favor over night. Instead the shift took place slowly. To suggest that the results of a single experiment could absolutely convince scientists that what they had come to accept without offering an alternative theory makes no sense. After all, no generally accepted scientific theory becomes wrong until something different becomes right (see Kuhn).
I'm sure this is all irrelavent to the point you were making, but what kind of/.er would I be if I let a comment I disagreed with go unchallenged?
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
That is ridiculous. There either is fair use or there is not fair use. Excluding fair use from infringement means you have fair use. It's simple really.
Again, the producer is under no obligation to make te work available, even under "fair use"
The question is not whether the producer has to make the work available. The question is if the producer has the right to make it illegal for fair use. The producer does not have that right.
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
But if you develop a method to copy those periodicals for fair use, should it then be illegal. Further, DeCSS does not facilitate copying, it facilitates using. This would be like the publisher of the periodical saying you must purchase their special reading light to see the ink on the pages, and any attempts to make your own reading light are illegal.
My paycheck is printed on paper that prints VOID across the check if I copy it. I should call my employer and demand that they stop doing this because it infringes on my rights!
The point of the "VOID" is to allow one to know if a check is a copy. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement and everything to do with preventing theft. You analagy is complete nonsense.
Duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing. An experiment performed twice with the same results is much more convincing than an experiment performed once. Further, it is unrealistic to think that scientists often *unknowingly* do the same work simultaneously as other scientists. The truth is scientists communicate with each other, especially those in the same field of research, and they generally know what kind of research is going on. In my experience talking with various researchers, they can often say with certainty if anyone else is doing similar work and who they are.
If you buy a book, or even borrow one, you can read it as many times as you like. You can lend it or rent it to a friend, sell it or give it away. You can't legally make copies of it, but you can use it as many times as you want.
Very true. But the difference between physical media (like books) and digital media (like MP3s) is that when people "share" their music, or whatever, they *are* making a copy.
I do not support the DMCA, but this argument is still flawed. Katz seems to be saying that digital media should be as uncontrolled as physical media by his analogy. There is an inherent deterrant in making copies of books, and that is time and money. But copying digital files and sending those copies to your friends or anyone else is nearly effortless. We cannot oppose the DMCA only on the grounds that there is no fundamental difference between physical and digital media.
I agree with you in the case that the user knows the exact name of the menu item he is looking for.
However, consider the case of a beginner: he knows what task he wants to perform but he doesn't know what it's name is. He has to scan the entire menu and choose the item whose name is closest (in his opinion) to what he wants to do. This case requires him to maintain all the items in his working memory so he can compare them all and make a choice.
For example, having a really nested organization to the Start Menu wastes alot of time, because wading throgh those menus every time you want to start a program is time-consuming.
On the contrary, I know people who have all their programs on the first level of their start menu, and I promise I spend *much* more time scanning through all those items than if it were arranged heirarchically. It is a well known fact in the world of human-computer interaction research that you should not present more than 7 or 8 items at once to a user, since that is the maximum amount they can absorb at one time. (This is why U.S. phone numbers are 7 digits--not counting the area code--for example.)
I believe he said "recompile my [linux] kernel so that I could...access my windows partition." Not, as you seem to think, "recompile my [windows] kernel so that I could...access my linux partitions."
Perhaps you were implying that Linux is better than windows since you *can* access the other's partitions. If this is the case, my apologies for misinterpreting your comment.
Oh absolutely...the development, as all good microcode/microprocessor programmers/designers know, should be done with a wire wrap kit, or better yet, wires and vacuum tubes. But once the product is developed and debugged it would be entirely inefficient to wirewrap every unit sold. For this the industry standard production techniques should be used (probably not circuit board etching, though, since we are producing chips). Of course, maybe this is what you meant. If so, my apologies.
Slashdot Mirror
why do I get the feeling that Microsoft money is somehow behind this effort???
Oh shit! MS Money is now an autonomous agent manipulating the world of big business for its own sinister ends? I need to get a different checkbook program!
Real Genius
Ahh, with your explanation it does make sense.
I will say then that my hindsight is 20/20 unlike your post.
(Not being an ass, just using your same pun to demonstrate my understanding.)
Demanding that people protect artifacts instead of people is what is sick.
I'm guessing that protecting artifacts and protecting people are not mutually exclusive, especially given the massive number of armed forces the US has there.
You hindsight is 20/20 like always, and so apparently is your hatred of Bush.
I don't want to come off as an idiot, but what exactly does it mean if one's hatred of Bush is 20/20?
You make it too easy. One more time:
Non-zero is non-zero.
Zero is zero.
Non-zero is not zero.
Zero is not non-zero.
There is no essentially zero, practically zero, or virtually zero, just as there is no essentially non-zero, practically non-zero, or virtually non-zero. The odds, no matter how small, must be recognized.
Because it just now made it into Discover. I assume that prompted the submitter to seek out another article somewhere discussing the same thing.
It's definitely real. I've read the article in Discover, complete with a full page picture of intestines, spleens, and various other turkey pieces. Not a good idea to flip to while you're eating dinner.
Take suggestions from dumbasses?...Wow. There's a recipie for failure.
I have to think that it is not being suggested that software developers take design or implementation suggestions from dumbasses. That would be a bad idea. Instead, we are probably talking about listening to the dumbasses to find out what they want, then making that happen. That is a good idea. Give the dumbasses what they want, and they will use it. And keep in mind that just because a dumbass wants it doesn't mean it will be a bad product or inherently flawed in some way.
What about recovery? That'd be an interesting scenario.
Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!)
Two things wrong with this statement. Let me quickly clear things up:
(1) Really anyone is able to *ask* as Joshua did. It's just that not everyone gets a response like he did. Maybe this is just semantics, though.
(2) Joshua didn't ask to stop the rotation of the earth, but rather the movement of the sun across the sky. This proves that the earth *is* the center of the universe! But that's a whole other discussion.
You don't understand...
It's funny because it's true.
dune, the humans won in that one, but it still bears mention
I don't remember anywhere in the Dune books a war between man and machine. Maybe you are referring to the Butlerian Jihad, in which all intelligent machines were wiped out, which actually took place before the first book did but is referenced throughout the series. Though I can't remember if that was humans versus machines or just humans versus other humans that had machines.
Either way, I think as geeks we have a tendency to forget that sci-fi is, by definition, not real. However, as geeks, we should be ashamed for forgetting that artificial intelligence is nowhere near a state where machines might pose any threat to humans. This is because of both the state of the art and the state of hardware capabilities.
It is little wonder that the brightest minds on our planet didn't/don't belive in a God, both Einstein and Stephen Hawking have both said they see no room for such an entity in the universe.
I've never actually heard this before (though I don't necessarily doubt it). Do you have any quotes or references for these two where they said something to that effect?
Definitely not Global Thermonuclear War. It's really a lose-lose game. In fact, I'd say the only way to win is not to play at all.
> instead, the [Michelson-Morley] experiment went completeley wrong,
/.er would I be if I let a comment I disagreed with go unchallenged?
> conclusively proved the lack of the cosmic
> ether, and Newton was kicked to the gutter
> (as an explanation for sub-macroscopic events)...
Sorry to nitpick, but this just isn't true. I did a research paper over these experiments and found that much of what many people believe about these experiments is simply wrong.
When the first experiments were done, everyone simply accepted that the accuracy of the experiment was compromised by any of the numerous obstacles the experimenter had to overcome. Even after the experiment was repeated several times, most dismissed the results as untrustworthy. Miller, who performed the experiment various times, actually DID find a postive ether drift. (Though he later admitted his experiment may have been flawed.)
The point is, no one considered these results as "disproving" classical physics until after Einstein had presented his theory. Thus, the ether drift experiments did not kick Newton to the gutter, but only served as a hindsight demonstration of what everyone had by then come to accept.
Like most theories, relativity did not gain unanimous favor over night. Instead the shift took place slowly. To suggest that the results of a single experiment could absolutely convince scientists that what they had come to accept without offering an alternative theory makes no sense. After all, no generally accepted scientific theory becomes wrong until something different becomes right (see Kuhn).
I'm sure this is all irrelavent to the point you were making, but what kind of
By the way, you can read my paper here.
This does not define fair use as an ABSOLUTE RIGHT, it mearly EXCLUDES it from the definition of infringement.
That is ridiculous. There either is fair use or there is not fair use. Excluding fair use from infringement means you have fair use. It's simple really.
Again, the producer is under no obligation to make te work available, even under "fair use"
The question is not whether the producer has to make the work available. The question is if the producer has the right to make it illegal for fair use. The producer does not have that right.
Many high priced periodicals are printed in such a way as to prevent copying. Does this interfere with your rights? No.
But if you develop a method to copy those periodicals for fair use, should it then be illegal. Further, DeCSS does not facilitate copying, it facilitates using. This would be like the publisher of the periodical saying you must purchase their special reading light to see the ink on the pages, and any attempts to make your own reading light are illegal.
My paycheck is printed on paper that prints VOID across the check if I copy it. I should call my employer and demand that they stop doing this because it infringes on my rights!
The point of the "VOID" is to allow one to know if a check is a copy. This has nothing to do with copyright infringement and everything to do with preventing theft. You analagy is complete nonsense.
-----
Duplication isn't necessarily a bad thing. An experiment performed twice with the same results is much more convincing than an experiment performed once. Further, it is unrealistic to think that scientists often *unknowingly* do the same work simultaneously as other scientists. The truth is scientists communicate with each other, especially those in the same field of research, and they generally know what kind of research is going on. In my experience talking with various researchers, they can often say with certainty if anyone else is doing similar work and who they are.
-----
If you buy a book, or even borrow one, you can read it as many times as you like. You can lend it or rent it to a friend, sell it or give it away. You can't legally make copies of it, but you can use it as many times as you want.
Very true. But the difference between physical media (like books) and digital media (like MP3s) is that when people "share" their music, or whatever, they *are* making a copy.
I do not support the DMCA, but this argument is still flawed. Katz seems to be saying that digital media should be as uncontrolled as physical media by his analogy. There is an inherent deterrant in making copies of books, and that is time and money. But copying digital files and sending those copies to your friends or anyone else is nearly effortless. We cannot oppose the DMCA only on the grounds that there is no fundamental difference between physical and digital media.
-----
I agree with you in the case that the user knows the exact name of the menu item he is looking for.
However, consider the case of a beginner: he knows what task he wants to perform but he doesn't know what it's name is. He has to scan the entire menu and choose the item whose name is closest (in his opinion) to what he wants to do. This case requires him to maintain all the items in his working memory so he can compare them all and make a choice.
-----
Very interesting...you learn something new every day. The sad thing is it was my GUI professor that told me the phone number story.
Also, I checked my GUI textbook from the class and indeed it was referencing Miller's 1956 paper. This is a textbook that was published in 1998.
So according to the paper you referenced, there should not be seven items in menu lists, for example, but instead around 3 or 4. Is this correct?
-----
For example, having a really nested organization to the Start Menu wastes alot of time, because wading throgh those menus every time you want to start a program is time-consuming.
On the contrary, I know people who have all their programs on the first level of their start menu, and I promise I spend *much* more time scanning through all those items than if it were arranged heirarchically. It is a well known fact in the world of human-computer interaction research that you should not present more than 7 or 8 items at once to a user, since that is the maximum amount they can absorb at one time. (This is why U.S. phone numbers are 7 digits--not counting the area code--for example.)
-----
what i don't get is, this whole "are belong to us" thing". is that some inside joke i'm missing?
All your base are belong to us.
-----
I believe he said "recompile my [linux] kernel so that I could...access my windows partition." Not, as you seem to think, "recompile my [windows] kernel so that I could...access my linux partitions."
Perhaps you were implying that Linux is better than windows since you *can* access the other's partitions. If this is the case, my apologies for misinterpreting your comment.
-----
Oh absolutely...the development, as all good microcode/microprocessor programmers/designers know, should be done with a wire wrap kit, or better yet, wires and vacuum tubes. But once the product is developed and debugged it would be entirely inefficient to wirewrap every unit sold. For this the industry standard production techniques should be used (probably not circuit board etching, though, since we are producing chips). Of course, maybe this is what you meant. If so, my apologies.
-----