Would that it were so, but "deciding for ourselves" what a law or directive means is not a very effective way of determining the consequences of a new regulation. One also has to inquire, who benefits from this directive? Who is opposed to it? What was it meant to accomplish? How is it enforceable? For example, the President states that it is his goal to minimize regulation, and perhaps that is laudable. But does this executive order now mean that anyone can sue a government agency for any regulation it creates if it can't monetarily justify the regulation? Is there a plan in place to attack or decimate certain regulatory bodies as a result of this executive order? If so, that may be a good thing, but maybe not.
Regardless of how intelligent we may be, without access to all the relevant facts, including those not on paper, our conclusions are bound to be flawed. I'm thankful for your links, but at this point, I feel that I know scarcely more than I did before, except that my feeling has deepened that there is something going on behind the scenes.
From the article, it appears that the casinos have a way of tracking down every user from the casino card, and asking them to return their ill-gotten gains.
So my question is this: Imagine that the machine was faulty in the other direction, that it was rigged to never come up with a win, no matter how long you played. Would the casinos go to similar lengths to contact their patrons after the fact and send them reimbursement checks? If not, then I say, screw 'em.
The tests of Bell's theorem demonstrated that, if one accepts the philosophical principles of Counterfactual definiteness (CFD, from my lay perspective seems to basically mean that the world actually works in a predictable, non ad-hoc fashion) then there are no local hidden variables. It's still very much an open question as to whether there are non-local hidden variables, a universe where particles exchange hidden information instantaneously and without regard for distance.
The well-known "many worlds interpretation" of QM is an example of a theory that does not implicitly rely on CFD. Since in MWI, every possible outcome is produced, there are no "counterfactuals."
"De Broglie-Bohm" is an example of a theory that uses non-local hidden variables, i.e., in this interpretation, spooky-action at a distance actually exists.
In the standard "Copenhagen" interpretation, the collapse of the waveform is either a subjective event or it is predicated upon certain conditions of the experiment, e.g, the collapse happens when a graviton has been disturbed or some such. Copenhagen doesn't deny Bell, but says, look, wave functions are just mathematical in nature, and don't necessarily reflect underlying reality, which may remain unreachable to us forever. As long as the math works, "why" it works is irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong with string theory being wrong. If we're just going to research the things we know to be true, there's not much learning going on. The history of science is in great part the discovery that commonly held ideas aren't supported by the evidence.
String Theory unfortunately has all the hallmarks of a belief system which, because we do not currently have the ability to falsify its predictions, lends itself to being entirely wrong.
Keep in mind, even if string theory is wrong, it's wrong in a way that is righter than most anything we encounter in daily life. That is, it makes 99.9999% the same predictions as the Standard Model in the domains for which we have the current ability to research. So "entirely wrong" seems a strong way to describe it not to mention objectionable from a philosophical standpoint -- i.e. that which is unfalsifiable arguably can't be "wrong." Such things as astrology and numerology are falsifiable, as much as anything can be. They make predictions, the predictions come to naught. It's just that their adherents refuse to accept reality. String theory, on the other hand, makes unique predictions in areas that we have no way to currently verify, hence the popular disparagement of "not even wrong." That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, because first and foremost it is a mathematical model, and if new math is learned, then many would consider that a worthwhile end in itself.
Re:Once again, they didn't read the article.
on
Attacking Sandboxes
·
· Score: 1
Interesting. So is there a way to SIMULATE running in a sandbox - in terms of a simple program could be installed by Joe Idiot and use up very few cpu cycles, so that the malware would believe the system was being sandboxed and thus behave innocently?
But surely advertisers don't care how long you stay on a site except insofar as it increases your exposure to their ad. E.g., on Slashdot, you might spend ten minutes reading comments but quickly scroll past the ads in the first 30 seconds and the rest is all content. However, if you choose to post a comment, an ad is visible on the comment pages and stays visible during the duration of your composition. I'd say the second ad, continuously viewed during the three mintues it takes to write a comment, is more valuable than the first ad, which goes off screen almost immediately.
I would by no means demand or even expect an apology no matter what your actions or intent, but certainly, you are an honorable person to offer one, for which I can only respond: Thank you.
So basically, they grabbed this poor guy for b.s. reasons (brown-skinned plus camera = terrorist), and now they've got to come up with a whole mechanism to justify doing it again in the future.
If that were indeed the plan, it would be by far the most stupid plan ever devised in the history of the world. After all, even if the terrestrial radio companies got every single radio station in the United States to shut down, the rest of the entire planet, which is still hooked up to the internet, would be able to easily fill in the void.
It's simply not possible for "internet radio" to die at this point. Only for the US to further drive its own companies into irrelevance.
This is an example of a "slashmeme" that constantly gets repeated but simply isn't true. There is no law that says businesses must amorally maximize immediate profits at the expense of all other considerations -- it's simply one of Milton Friedman's positions elevated to the level of libertarian gospel. Managers have extremely broad leeway under the "business judgment rule" to do what they consider to be best for the shareholders, and their decision may cut into profits. That's why they can vote themselves hundred million dollar salaries and not get locked away. That's why "poison pill" type provisions are legal, even though they put corporate independence over immediate shareholder profits. Can shareholders sue corporate heads for not being sufficiently amoral? Sure, anybody can be sued by anybody for any reason at any time in the United States of America, but that doesn't mean the suit will typically prevail.
Bottom line is there's nothing illegal about CEOs having ethical standards, and to claim that they have no choice in the matter is letting them off the hook far too easily.
That's not the case. In most states, you only need the consent of one party to tape record the call. Hence in most states, you can tape your calls without notifying others.
The police may realize that they only have a limited amount of time to establish these rules before it is effectively too late. The time is fast approaching when nearly everyone will have a personal recording device (possibly concealed) running all day long for their own protection. This will severely hamper the ability of the cops to act like thugs unless they can somehow make such recordings illegal and inadmissable when a police officer is involved.
If anything, police officers ought to be required by law to wear pickups that record ALL sound and a snapshot every 10 seconds while they are on duty.
Interesting, but who would have access to this information? Would it be generally available to the public? Then what if the cops were doing a criminal investigation -- now the perps would know exactly where they were, what they were planning, etc.? Would this apply to undercover cops? So much for being undercover, then. Not to mention, I'd think it would make being a police officer even less appealing than it is now. I don't know you if could pay me enough to be under constant 8-hour surveillance, every comment, every action permanently recorded for others to review and nitpick. (I realize there are people who already work under such conditions and manage to get through the day, but it seems horrid to me.
which could mean these companies are guilty of copyright infringement if any of their users in Japan store music in their accounts for personal use.
It goes beyond that, at least, according to Gigazine. What the Gigazine article is alleging is that the court decision implies that any use of online storage for copyrighted materials, ANY copyrighted materials, is a violation. Storing photos, movie clips or articles would run afoul of the decision as well. You'd have to wonder if even email could survive unscathed if this decision is taken to its ultimate end.
Except for one thing. Evolution isn't a theory. It's a phenomenon, a historical fact. It is described and explained by one or more theories. Perhaps nitpicky, but I think that part of the problem with the modern attitude toward science is that people mistake the interpretation of a fact for the fact itself. And people can argue until the cows come home exactly how evolution works. What is inarguable is that the creatures returning from pasture are distant relatives of the endlessly bickering humans.
and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs.
If CC could jack up their ad rates, they already would. Radio has to compete with too many other domains, TV, print, internet, billboards, movie pre-show ads, and can't afford to unilaterally jack up its rates. You might be surprised how cheap radio advertising is.
I realize that what you're stating is the received wisdom and as such can scarcely be questioned, but I'd wonder how illiterate Chinese people throughout history were able to even hold a conversation without being baffled by homophones. Using characters is a clever solution to the problem of transferring Chinese words to paper but it is not the only one, as evidenced by the existence of the Dungan and Xiao-er-jin syllabaries.
Disney et al. built their empires on the public domain. Now they wish to erect tolls and evict us as squatters. The danger, as we're seeing from software patents, is not simply that IP rights might be granted in perpetuity. It's that it's IP protection has become so widespread that it's filled the entire mental landscape with toll roads and barbed wire. It's almost impossible to create something in the modern world without infringment. And the longer that copyright is extended, the more that will become true. In essense, by passing the Berne Convention and DMCA-like provisions, current content creators have gifted themselves with a massive land run on previously public lands. From a wilderness that was previously mostly free, they have already taken many of the choice properties, and future generations will either have to settle for wasteland, pay rent forever, or trespass and hope not to get caught.
The author is making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. So the fact that titles happen, currently, not to be copyrightable is irrelevant. If you follow the author's reasoning, then every idea under the sun ought to be indefinitely copyrightable, whether it be a book, a song, a title, a slogan, a recipe, or the barest concept. After all, what is the moral justification for protecting the livelihood of an author and not that of a slogan-maker? Besides which, titles and slogans can to some extent be trademarked if defined as part of a brand (e.g. Conan(TM)the Barbarian) and perpetually with the proper forms and fees.
I suppose under this argument, fair use is likewise an abomination. Why should critics and satirists be allowed an easement over property they can just as easily avoid?
SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license.
Incorrect on two counts. SoundExchange is NOT the RIAA. SoundExchange is governed by a board that consists of the RIAA, major labels, large independent labels, and some non-RIAA organization reps.
They do not consider "any" performance of a song as falling under their license, only those performances that fall under the statutory license. You are able to negotiate your own license if you wish. You can even negotiate your own license if you are a SoundExchange member.
If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio.
Only if the song is performed under the compulsory license. Under any other license, then no, SoundExchange will not collect the royalties. (Obviously, a webcaster can't legally perform someone else's song with no license at all.
Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free.
Yes they absolutely can grant a royalty-free license if they which, or any other type of license agreed to by both parties.
So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.
No, you DON'T have join SoundExchange to get your royalties. There is an administrative fee which is deducted automatically from the compulsory license royalties, but you don't have to pay anything outside of that. In other words, if you want to collect your compulsory license royalties, you don't have to cut a check to SoundExchange, all you are required to do is collect, but the amount you collect will be slightly less than the the amount paid by the webcaster, due to the administrative overhead. If you don't like the idea of SoundExchange deducting a percentage for their overhead, that's fine. You can opt out by directly negotiating with the webcasters for royalties.
The only part of this that is even slightly a racket is that currently SoundExchange is the only body authorized by the government to collect the compulsory royalties, so there's no incentive for them to lower their administrative costs. Also, the fact that the compulsory royalties are so ridonkulously high to begin with. But in principle, so long as copyright exists at all, compulsory licenses are a good thing. They enable webcasters to play music without having to find each and every copyright holder and personally ask their permission to play their music. One could argue that the royalties should be much lower, or even zero, but that's a different discussion.
Clearly the $20 rental model wouldn't be attractive to people who only listen to one song a month. But for someone who listens to hundreds of different songs a month, it holds some allure. Besides, some rental places have variable pricing options a la Netflix. Which seems to be doing OK, by the way.
The point is, people should be allowed as much choice as possible. Jobs has done a lot of cool things, but he's always given me the impression that he doesn't care too much for choice. The original Macintosh was a closed box because Jobs thought expansion options were too complex for his buyers, and because he wanted to impose uniformity. The labels can't use variable pricing on iTunes, because he thinks they're too complicated for the average consumer. And now he seems to think that people can't decide on their own whether renting is an appealing option to them. He's deemed it lame, thus it must be.
Slashdot Mirror
Would that it were so, but "deciding for ourselves" what a law or directive means is not a very effective way of determining the consequences of a new regulation. One also has to inquire, who benefits from this directive? Who is opposed to it? What was it meant to accomplish? How is it enforceable? For example, the President states that it is his goal to minimize regulation, and perhaps that is laudable. But does this executive order now mean that anyone can sue a government agency for any regulation it creates if it can't monetarily justify the regulation? Is there a plan in place to attack or decimate certain regulatory bodies as a result of this executive order? If so, that may be a good thing, but maybe not.
Regardless of how intelligent we may be, without access to all the relevant facts, including those not on paper, our conclusions are bound to be flawed. I'm thankful for your links, but at this point, I feel that I know scarcely more than I did before, except that my feeling has deepened that there is something going on behind the scenes.
From the article, it appears that the casinos have a way of tracking down every user from the casino card, and asking them to return their ill-gotten gains.
So my question is this: Imagine that the machine was faulty in the other direction, that it was rigged to never come up with a win, no matter how long you played. Would the casinos go to similar lengths to contact their patrons after the fact and send them reimbursement checks? If not, then I say, screw 'em.
The tests of Bell's theorem demonstrated that, if one accepts the philosophical principles of Counterfactual definiteness (CFD, from my lay perspective seems to basically mean that the world actually works in a predictable, non ad-hoc fashion) then there are no local hidden variables. It's still very much an open question as to whether there are non-local hidden variables, a universe where particles exchange hidden information instantaneously and without regard for distance.
The well-known "many worlds interpretation" of QM is an example of a theory that does not implicitly rely on CFD. Since in MWI, every possible outcome is produced, there are no "counterfactuals."
"De Broglie-Bohm" is an example of a theory that uses non-local hidden variables, i.e., in this interpretation, spooky-action at a distance actually exists.
In the standard "Copenhagen" interpretation, the collapse of the waveform is either a subjective event or it is predicated upon certain conditions of the experiment, e.g, the collapse happens when a graviton has been disturbed or some such. Copenhagen doesn't deny Bell, but says, look, wave functions are just mathematical in nature, and don't necessarily reflect underlying reality, which may remain unreachable to us forever. As long as the math works, "why" it works is irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong with string theory being wrong. If we're just going to research the things we know to be true, there's not much learning going on. The history of science is in great part the discovery that commonly held ideas aren't supported by the evidence.
String Theory unfortunately has all the hallmarks of a belief system which, because we do not currently have the ability to falsify its predictions, lends itself to being entirely wrong.
Keep in mind, even if string theory is wrong, it's wrong in a way that is righter than most anything we encounter in daily life. That is, it makes 99.9999% the same predictions as the Standard Model in the domains for which we have the current ability to research. So "entirely wrong" seems a strong way to describe it not to mention objectionable from a philosophical standpoint -- i.e. that which is unfalsifiable arguably can't be "wrong." Such things as astrology and numerology are falsifiable, as much as anything can be. They make predictions, the predictions come to naught. It's just that their adherents refuse to accept reality. String theory, on the other hand, makes unique predictions in areas that we have no way to currently verify, hence the popular disparagement of "not even wrong." That doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, because first and foremost it is a mathematical model, and if new math is learned, then many would consider that a worthwhile end in itself.
Interesting. So is there a way to SIMULATE running in a sandbox - in terms of a simple program could be installed by Joe Idiot and use up very few cpu cycles, so that the malware would believe the system was being sandboxed and thus behave innocently?
But surely advertisers don't care how long you stay on a site except insofar as it increases your exposure to their ad. E.g., on Slashdot, you might spend ten minutes reading comments but quickly scroll past the ads in the first 30 seconds and the rest is all content. However, if you choose to post a comment, an ad is visible on the comment pages and stays visible during the duration of your composition. I'd say the second ad, continuously viewed during the three mintues it takes to write a comment, is more valuable than the first ad, which goes off screen almost immediately.
I would by no means demand or even expect an apology no matter what your actions or intent, but certainly, you are an honorable person to offer one, for which I can only respond: Thank you.
So basically, they grabbed this poor guy for b.s. reasons (brown-skinned plus camera = terrorist), and now they've got to come up with a whole mechanism to justify doing it again in the future.
If that were indeed the plan, it would be by far the most stupid plan ever devised in the history of the world. After all, even if the terrestrial radio companies got every single radio station in the United States to shut down, the rest of the entire planet, which is still hooked up to the internet, would be able to easily fill in the void.
It's simply not possible for "internet radio" to die at this point. Only for the US to further drive its own companies into irrelevance.
Viacom spun off Blockbuster back in 2004.
This is an example of a "slashmeme" that constantly gets repeated but simply isn't true. There is no law that says businesses must amorally maximize immediate profits at the expense of all other considerations -- it's simply one of Milton Friedman's positions elevated to the level of libertarian gospel. Managers have extremely broad leeway under the "business judgment rule" to do what they consider to be best for the shareholders, and their decision may cut into profits. That's why they can vote themselves hundred million dollar salaries and not get locked away. That's why "poison pill" type provisions are legal, even though they put corporate independence over immediate shareholder profits. Can shareholders sue corporate heads for not being sufficiently amoral? Sure, anybody can be sued by anybody for any reason at any time in the United States of America, but that doesn't mean the suit will typically prevail.
Bottom line is there's nothing illegal about CEOs having ethical standards, and to claim that they have no choice in the matter is letting them off the hook far too easily.
That's not the case. In most states, you only need the consent of one party to tape record the call. Hence in most states, you can tape your calls without notifying others.
The police may realize that they only have a limited amount of time to establish these rules before it is effectively too late. The time is fast approaching when nearly everyone will have a personal recording device (possibly concealed) running all day long for their own protection. This will severely hamper the ability of the cops to act like thugs unless they can somehow make such recordings illegal and inadmissable when a police officer is involved.
If anything, police officers ought to be required by law to wear pickups that record ALL sound and a snapshot every 10 seconds while they are on duty.
Interesting, but who would have access to this information? Would it be generally available to the public? Then what if the cops were doing a criminal investigation -- now the perps would know exactly where they were, what they were planning, etc.? Would this apply to undercover cops? So much for being undercover, then. Not to mention, I'd think it would make being a police officer even less appealing than it is now. I don't know you if could pay me enough to be under constant 8-hour surveillance, every comment, every action permanently recorded for others to review and nitpick. (I realize there are people who already work under such conditions and manage to get through the day, but it seems horrid to me.
There was just an Slashdot discussion on ZFS a few days ago. The OP should read it, it pretty much covers his/her questions.
which could mean these companies are guilty of copyright infringement if any of their users in Japan store music in their accounts for personal use.
It goes beyond that, at least, according to Gigazine. What the Gigazine article is alleging is that the court decision implies that any use of online storage for copyrighted materials, ANY copyrighted materials, is a violation. Storing photos, movie clips or articles would run afoul of the decision as well. You'd have to wonder if even email could survive unscathed if this decision is taken to its ultimate end.
I suppose nothing's really "inarguable," so point taken. :)
Except for one thing. Evolution isn't a theory. It's a phenomenon, a historical fact. It is described and explained by one or more theories. Perhaps nitpicky, but I think that part of the problem with the modern attitude toward science is that people mistake the interpretation of a fact for the fact itself. And people can argue until the cows come home exactly how evolution works. What is inarguable is that the creatures returning from pasture are distant relatives of the endlessly bickering humans.
and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs.
If CC could jack up their ad rates, they already would. Radio has to compete with too many other domains, TV, print, internet, billboards, movie pre-show ads, and can't afford to unilaterally jack up its rates. You might be surprised how cheap radio advertising is.
I realize that what you're stating is the received wisdom and as such can scarcely be questioned, but I'd wonder how illiterate Chinese people throughout history were able to even hold a conversation without being baffled by homophones. Using characters is a clever solution to the problem of transferring Chinese words to paper but it is not the only one, as evidenced by the existence of the Dungan and Xiao-er-jin syllabaries.
Just curious, what international copyright law do you think he might be breaking?
Disney et al. built their empires on the public domain. Now they wish to erect tolls and evict us as squatters. The danger, as we're seeing from software patents, is not simply that IP rights might be granted in perpetuity. It's that it's IP protection has become so widespread that it's filled the entire mental landscape with toll roads and barbed wire. It's almost impossible to create something in the modern world without infringment. And the longer that copyright is extended, the more that will become true. In essense, by passing the Berne Convention and DMCA-like provisions, current content creators have gifted themselves with a massive land run on previously public lands. From a wilderness that was previously mostly free, they have already taken many of the choice properties, and future generations will either have to settle for wasteland, pay rent forever, or trespass and hope not to get caught.
Titles are not copyrightable
The author is making a philosophical argument, not a legal one. So the fact that titles happen, currently, not to be copyrightable is irrelevant. If you follow the author's reasoning, then every idea under the sun ought to be indefinitely copyrightable, whether it be a book, a song, a title, a slogan, a recipe, or the barest concept. After all, what is the moral justification for protecting the livelihood of an author and not that of a slogan-maker? Besides which, titles and slogans can to some extent be trademarked if defined as part of a brand (e.g. Conan(TM)the Barbarian) and perpetually with the proper forms and fees.
I suppose under this argument, fair use is likewise an abomination. Why should critics and satirists be allowed an easement over property they can just as easily avoid?
SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license.
Incorrect on two counts. SoundExchange is NOT the RIAA. SoundExchange is governed by a board that consists of the RIAA, major labels, large independent labels, and some non-RIAA organization reps.
They do not consider "any" performance of a song as falling under their license, only those performances that fall under the statutory license. You are able to negotiate your own license if you wish. You can even negotiate your own license if you are a SoundExchange member.
If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio.
Only if the song is performed under the compulsory license. Under any other license, then no, SoundExchange will not collect the royalties. (Obviously, a webcaster can't legally perform someone else's song with no license at all.
Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free.
Yes they absolutely can grant a royalty-free license if they which, or any other type of license agreed to by both parties.
So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.
No, you DON'T have join SoundExchange to get your royalties. There is an administrative fee which is deducted automatically from the compulsory license royalties, but you don't have to pay anything outside of that. In other words, if you want to collect your compulsory license royalties, you don't have to cut a check to SoundExchange, all you are required to do is collect, but the amount you collect will be slightly less than the the amount paid by the webcaster, due to the administrative overhead. If you don't like the idea of SoundExchange deducting a percentage for their overhead, that's fine. You can opt out by directly negotiating with the webcasters for royalties.
The only part of this that is even slightly a racket is that currently SoundExchange is the only body authorized by the government to collect the compulsory royalties, so there's no incentive for them to lower their administrative costs. Also, the fact that the compulsory royalties are so ridonkulously high to begin with. But in principle, so long as copyright exists at all, compulsory licenses are a good thing. They enable webcasters to play music without having to find each and every copyright holder and personally ask their permission to play their music. One could argue that the royalties should be much lower, or even zero, but that's a different discussion.
Clearly the $20 rental model wouldn't be attractive to people who only listen to one song a month. But for someone who listens to hundreds of different songs a month, it holds some allure. Besides, some rental places have variable pricing options a la Netflix. Which seems to be doing OK, by the way.
The point is, people should be allowed as much choice as possible. Jobs has done a lot of cool things, but he's always given me the impression that he doesn't care too much for choice. The original Macintosh was a closed box because Jobs thought expansion options were too complex for his buyers, and because he wanted to impose uniformity. The labels can't use variable pricing on iTunes, because he thinks they're too complicated for the average consumer. And now he seems to think that people can't decide on their own whether renting is an appealing option to them. He's deemed it lame, thus it must be.