And another thing: Even your fridge doesn't know everything you have. At least I don't keep flour or other "dry" food in the fridge.
Indeed. I have a few other questions, myself. Does the refridgerator know whether that gallon of milk inside it is nearly full, or nearly empty? Will it know when the milk has expired, and if so, what does it do? And I doubt it keeps track of leftovers, doggie bags, etc. This idea sounds cool, but it doesn't appear to have been thought through.
[Einstein] had data, mainly that the speed of light was measured to be the same in all inertial frames of reference. But he didn't have any data regarding gravitational lensing, time dilation, or nuclear fission.
If I understand it correctly, though, time dilation was an inevitable side-effect of Relativity. I mean, if you make c fixed regardless of the inertial frame of reference, then something weird has to happen to time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Einstein didn't have a "Theory of Temporal Dilation", he had a "Theory of Invariant Light Speed". Observing whether or not time dilates becomes another means of testing that theory.
(I have nothing to say about gravitational lensing, because I don't recognize the term, nor fission, because I don't know what it has to do with Relativity.)
There does not appear to be any method for the open source software method to identify and respond to the needs of nontechies...Moreover, because opensource software tends to be written for use by IT professionals, there are few incentives to smooth out the rough edges and make software easier to use.
Yes would some of the supposed experts here like to counter this seemingly valid point?
Nontechie: I will give you one million dollars to make this program easy for me to use.
Given that Qwest is the only real local telephone service supplier in fourteen US states, I don't think it would be a good thing for them to go out of business.
One option I didn't see anyone suggest is to contact the developers and see if they'd be willing to offer you a different license. For example, maybe they'd let you license it under LGPL for a fee.
Good point. My question is: How would an Eldred victory affect all the previously written retroactive extensions to copyright? (For example, I think one was passed in 1976.) Do these immediately get struck down? I suspect they have to be challenged individually, with Eldred v. Ashcroft used as precedent, but that seems rather inefficient, even for the judiciary. Perhaps they can be collectively challenged?
Then Sun has an OS monopoly for Sun machines, Apple has a monopoly for the market of Apple machines...
Agreed. But remember: it's not illegal to merely have a monopoly. Microsoft was taken to court because it abused its monopoly.
I don't recall why Linux or any of the other free OS's didn't count as an alternative...
Because of the "applications barrier to entry" I mentioned in passing. Basically, the idea is that if you want to replace your OS with (say) Linux, then you also need to acquire new apps, convert all your various documents, learn new interfaces, etc. This is where the "cost prohibitive" part comes in.
Anyway, who's to say exactly what dollar amount is prohibitive?
That would be the typical consumer within the relevant market. I have a hard time believing you can call a typical Windows user and get him or her to say that purchasing an iMac in response to the price of Windows going up (even by as much as 25%) is reasonable.
It's an absurd logic.
This isn't computing we're talking about; it's law. Logic doesn't rule the day here. It isn't absurd; it's merely subjective. That's why there was a trial: to determine if Microsoft's position is one of a monopolist.
Have you ever read the ruling that determined MS has a monopoly in the OS market? I have, and the logic is pretty shaky. They basically ruled that all the other OS's that exist "don't count", therefore MS must have a monopoly in the OS market, pretty lame.
I didn't read it that way at all. First, the relevant market was defined as OSes for x86 PCs. In this market, Microsoft has something like a 95% market share. (Adding Apple to the relevant market only drops it to 80%.) This is more than enough to be considered a monopoly, and we haven't removed any OSes from consideration yet. The list of things that "don't count" were alternatives to x86 machines, not Windows. In other words, does one have to dominate both PCs and (for example) PDAs to be considered a monopoly? The judge said no, and I agree.
The list of OSes he disses are used as evidence of the "applications barrier to entry"; basically demonstrating that users can't effortlessly replace Windows. This, also, is true. Wine may be getting better, but we're talking about three years ago. I really don't see what objection you can have to these two statements.
There have been a lot of posts lately like this, which generally make fun of both the original poster pointing out the hypocrisy and the hypocrisy itself. They are no longer funny.
So, the new rule is: nothing on Slashdot is funny. Gotcha.
Oh, and I've got other news for you. Slashdot is made up of MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
You know, I find this statement rather ironic, since I've pointed out this very fact to others. I don't consider/. as a whole hypocritical, just annoying.
That means , that unless they are special brainwashed clones, they will have different opinions.
Given the subject of the article, I suppose I could make a joke here, but since it would appear on Slashdot, it wouldn't be funny.
Personally, I was just trying to lighten the mood after Lonath's post. I don't think s/he's a hypocrite. In fact, I completely agree with the point being made, and have written to my Representative and Senators about the CBDTPA (and have received replies!). As someone who actually gives a damn about what the MPAA does, and acts on my beliefs, I feel I've earned the right to poke fun at my own point of view. You, Sir or Madam, need to lighten up.
...I expect the MPAA will be able to use the profits to buy off 2-3 more congressmen and take away computers just a little bit faster. It's a good thing that just about everybody on/. is a hypocrite because on Monday we can all come back here and bitch about how the **AA has too much money and how they're trying to take away freedom after we just spent a weekend gorging ourselves on the latest crap they flung up against the wall to squeeze a little more money out of us.
There have been a lot of posts lately like this, which generally say, "Oh! I didn't know/. was supposed to like the MPAA today." Here's a handy little guide for future reference.
First, the general rule is: We like the MPAA on Tuesdays and Fridays. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but this is a good basic reminder. Sometimes, like near a holiday weekend, we like the MPAA on a Thursday. Also, if the MPAA has generated a lot of hype, we'll like them on a Thursday (this is more likely during summer months). One time, the MPAA generated so much hype, we liked them on a Wednesday. But Fridays are a safe bet.
Then, once we stop liking the MPAA, they shift gears and let us own a piece of hype, instead of merely look at it. This almost always happens on a Tuesday (check out your local video store if you don't believe me). Once, there was a very scary piece of hype (though some said it made them sea-sick, and was just plain stupid) that the MPAA let us own on a different day of the week (just in time for Halloween).
If including a Miller-style test made the COPA constitutional by definition, then it is doubtful the case would have found its way into the supreme court, or that the ruling would not have been unanimous.
Touché. In my defense, though, I should say that I thought you were challenging the constitutionality of the Miller test, not COPA's similarity thereto.
It appears that neither the article nor the text of the ruling nor the COPA itself contain the word "Miller".
You may want to re-read the ruling. The syllabus of the decision (which appears as the first two pages of the PDF-format decision linked-to in the article) does mention it:
In defining "material that is harmful to minors," COPA draws on the three-part obscentity test set forth in
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, see 231(e)(6), and thus requires jurors to apply "contemporary community standards" in assessing material, see 231(e)(6)(A).
Also, in a quick glance through the main opinion, I found fifteen references to Miller; six in Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion; one in Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion; and three in Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion.
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of this decision. I hold out hope that other grounds will strike down COPA, but this one seemed like it should have worked.
I don't know who Miller is but the above still runs afoul of the constitution as pointed out by the parent post. To use as a standard that something "lacks serious value" is as thoroughly subjective and vague a standard as one can have... and therefore, unconstitutional.
Miller is a Supreme Court case that decided how the lower courts should define "obscenity". Yes, it's subjective, but so are most things not processed by a computer. Oh, and seeing as it's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not constitutional (and not we bunch of 'blog posters that can't be bothered to stand behind our words by admitting who we really are), the Miller standard is by definition constitutional.
As for inventing worlds with complex histories--Tolkien's not the only one. Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance, Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, Lucas's Star Wars, and others that I haven't had the pleasure of reading also have complex and rich histories. J.R.R.T. was the first, but he's hardly unique in the simple act of doing it. All that he's got is precedence.
I'm afraid I haven't read the books you cite, so I'll have to take you at your word that they've got rich histories (I'm not a big fan of the fantasy genre, and maybe Tolkein is to blame for that, too). I hope that when you mention Star Wars, though, you mean something more than the movies. I've only read a few Star Wars books, and so far I haven't seen anything that comes close to the level of obsessive-compulsive detail that Tolkein reached with The Silmarillion.
*Sigh* It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal for a company that has a monopoly to compete in any manner other than on the merits of their products.
Currently, there are four replies to my comment. The substance of my response to each is essentially the same, so I'm just going to post it here once. Oh, and IANAL.
Yes: typically, when you break a law, you get punished. Anti-trust law, though, is different. As many Libertarians will tell you, it isn't "fair" to punish a company just because it was successful enough to achieve market dominance. That, after all, is the goal of any lawful business. This is why the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't a crime. Once you reach such a position of dominance, though, it becomes incredibly easy for you avoid competition on the merits, instead using your position of dominance to keep superior products off the market. This is the situation that anti-trust laws are designed to address. Thus, the goal of any anti-trust remedy is not to punish a company that has a monopoly, but instead to force it to start competing on the merits again.
So, GnomeKing, your analogy is an apt one. I don't understand why the courts do this in matters of anti-trust law, but they do.
And mmynsted: Microsoft probably does see this as just the cost of doing business. Sucks, but it can't be helped.
Slashdot Mirror
> > early 00's
> How do you pronounce that?
I say, "aughts". (Also, I don't put an apostrophe in "00s".)
Technically speaking, Enron is not a Blue Chip company. That term is reserved for the thirty companies which make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Pedantic, I know, but it's what I do best.
And another thing: Even your fridge doesn't know everything you have. At least I don't keep flour or other "dry" food in the fridge.
Indeed. I have a few other questions, myself. Does the refridgerator know whether that gallon of milk inside it is nearly full, or nearly empty? Will it know when the milk has expired, and if so, what does it do? And I doubt it keeps track of leftovers, doggie bags, etc. This idea sounds cool, but it doesn't appear to have been thought through.
If the intruder is smart enough to know how to do this, they will go after big corporate targets with expensive boxen, and not your personal machine.
Try telling that to Scarfo.
Just like people took the Slashdot Blackout seriously, right?
Would you mind explaining to me what the Slashdot Blackout was? Honestly, I'm not trying for a +1 Funny here, I really haven't heard of it.
[Einstein] had data, mainly that the speed of light was measured to be the same in all inertial frames of reference. But he didn't have any data regarding gravitational lensing, time dilation, or nuclear fission.
If I understand it correctly, though, time dilation was an inevitable side-effect of Relativity. I mean, if you make c fixed regardless of the inertial frame of reference, then something weird has to happen to time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Einstein didn't have a "Theory of Temporal Dilation", he had a "Theory of Invariant Light Speed". Observing whether or not time dilates becomes another means of testing that theory.
(I have nothing to say about gravitational lensing, because I don't recognize the term, nor fission, because I don't know what it has to do with Relativity.)
[Nitrogen] is cheap and easy to acquire as far as gasses go.
I have some nitrogen for sale, if you'd like. Fair warning, though: it's a little contaminated. I think it's only about 75%-80% pure.
Heres another good one:
Yes would some of the supposed experts here like to counter this seemingly valid point?
Nontechie: I will give you one million dollars to make this program easy for me to use.
Given that Qwest is the only real local telephone service supplier in fourteen US states, I don't think it would be a good thing for them to go out of business.
Since when is knowledge a thing which only one person can possess?
What next? Will you tell me that in order for you to learn about calculus, your professor has to forget it?
What a stupid line of reasoning.
One option I didn't see anyone suggest is to contact the developers and see if they'd be willing to offer you a different license. For example, maybe they'd let you license it under LGPL for a fee.
Good point. My question is: How would an Eldred victory affect all the previously written retroactive extensions to copyright? (For example, I think one was passed in 1976.) Do these immediately get struck down? I suspect they have to be challenged individually, with Eldred v. Ashcroft used as precedent, but that seems rather inefficient, even for the judiciary. Perhaps they can be collectively challenged?
Mayhap you would be happy if I told you you aren't funny because you are unoriginal?
Ouch. Point taken.
As for why I keep coming back even though it is annoying, well it's better than most other sh*t out there.
I hear you. I keep looking, but like some pathetic co-dependent, I always come back.
Perhaps. It is something I've been working on. However, might I make a suggestion that you should try being more original, as I said originally?
It's a deal.
Then Sun has an OS monopoly for Sun machines, Apple has a monopoly for the market of Apple machines...
Agreed. But remember: it's not illegal to merely have a monopoly. Microsoft was taken to court because it abused its monopoly.
I don't recall why Linux or any of the other free OS's didn't count as an alternative...
Because of the "applications barrier to entry" I mentioned in passing. Basically, the idea is that if you want to replace your OS with (say) Linux, then you also need to acquire new apps, convert all your various documents, learn new interfaces, etc. This is where the "cost prohibitive" part comes in.
Anyway, who's to say exactly what dollar amount is prohibitive?
That would be the typical consumer within the relevant market. I have a hard time believing you can call a typical Windows user and get him or her to say that purchasing an iMac in response to the price of Windows going up (even by as much as 25%) is reasonable.
It's an absurd logic.
This isn't computing we're talking about; it's law. Logic doesn't rule the day here. It isn't absurd; it's merely subjective. That's why there was a trial: to determine if Microsoft's position is one of a monopolist.
Have you ever read the ruling that determined MS has a monopoly in the OS market? I have, and the logic is pretty shaky. They basically ruled that all the other OS's that exist "don't count", therefore MS must have a monopoly in the OS market, pretty lame.
I didn't read it that way at all. First, the relevant market was defined as OSes for x86 PCs. In this market, Microsoft has something like a 95% market share. (Adding Apple to the relevant market only drops it to 80%.) This is more than enough to be considered a monopoly, and we haven't removed any OSes from consideration yet. The list of things that "don't count" were alternatives to x86 machines, not Windows. In other words, does one have to dominate both PCs and (for example) PDAs to be considered a monopoly? The judge said no, and I agree.
The list of OSes he disses are used as evidence of the "applications barrier to entry"; basically demonstrating that users can't effortlessly replace Windows. This, also, is true. Wine may be getting better, but we're talking about three years ago. I really don't see what objection you can have to these two statements.
There have been a lot of posts lately like this, which generally make fun of both the original poster pointing out the hypocrisy and the hypocrisy itself. They are no longer funny.
So, the new rule is: nothing on Slashdot is funny. Gotcha.
Oh, and I've got other news for you. Slashdot is made up of MORE THAN ONE PERSON.
You know, I find this statement rather ironic, since I've pointed out this very fact to others. I don't consider /. as a whole hypocritical, just annoying.
That means , that unless they are special brainwashed clones, they will have different opinions.
Given the subject of the article, I suppose I could make a joke here, but since it would appear on Slashdot, it wouldn't be funny.
Personally, I was just trying to lighten the mood after Lonath's post. I don't think s/he's a hypocrite. In fact, I completely agree with the point being made, and have written to my Representative and Senators about the CBDTPA (and have received replies!). As someone who actually gives a damn about what the MPAA does, and acts on my beliefs, I feel I've earned the right to poke fun at my own point of view. You, Sir or Madam, need to lighten up.
Don't forget about the Articles of Confederation!
There have been a lot of posts lately like this, which generally say, "Oh! I didn't know /. was supposed to like the MPAA today." Here's a handy little guide for future reference.
First, the general rule is: We like the MPAA on Tuesdays and Fridays. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule, but this is a good basic reminder. Sometimes, like near a holiday weekend, we like the MPAA on a Thursday. Also, if the MPAA has generated a lot of hype, we'll like them on a Thursday (this is more likely during summer months). One time, the MPAA generated so much hype, we liked them on a Wednesday. But Fridays are a safe bet.
Then, once we stop liking the MPAA, they shift gears and let us own a piece of hype, instead of merely look at it. This almost always happens on a Tuesday (check out your local video store if you don't believe me). Once, there was a very scary piece of hype (though some said it made them sea-sick, and was just plain stupid) that the MPAA let us own on a different day of the week (just in time for Halloween).
I hope this clears things up.
Conceded... but pedantic.
Sorry. I have tendancies toward the pedantic.
If including a Miller-style test made the COPA constitutional by definition, then it is doubtful the case would have found its way into the supreme court, or that the ruling would not have been unanimous.
Touché. In my defense, though, I should say that I thought you were challenging the constitutionality of the Miller test, not COPA's similarity thereto.
It appears that neither the article nor the text of the ruling nor the COPA itself contain the word "Miller".
You may want to re-read the ruling. The syllabus of the decision (which appears as the first two pages of the PDF-format decision linked-to in the article) does mention it:
Also, in a quick glance through the main opinion, I found fifteen references to Miller; six in Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion; one in Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion; and three in Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion.
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of this decision. I hold out hope that other grounds will strike down COPA, but this one seemed like it should have worked.
I don't know who Miller is but the above still runs afoul of the constitution as pointed out by the parent post. To use as a standard that something "lacks serious value" is as thoroughly subjective and vague a standard as one can have... and therefore, unconstitutional.
Miller is a Supreme Court case that decided how the lower courts should define "obscenity". Yes, it's subjective, but so are most things not processed by a computer. Oh, and seeing as it's the job of the Supreme Court to decide what is and is not constitutional (and not we bunch of 'blog posters that can't be bothered to stand behind our words by admitting who we really are), the Miller standard is by definition constitutional.
As for inventing worlds with complex histories--Tolkien's not the only one. Weis & Hickman's Dragonlance, Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms, Lucas's Star Wars, and others that I haven't had the pleasure of reading also have complex and rich histories. J.R.R.T. was the first, but he's hardly unique in the simple act of doing it. All that he's got is precedence.
I'm afraid I haven't read the books you cite, so I'll have to take you at your word that they've got rich histories (I'm not a big fan of the fantasy genre, and maybe Tolkein is to blame for that, too). I hope that when you mention Star Wars, though, you mean something more than the movies. I've only read a few Star Wars books, and so far I haven't seen anything that comes close to the level of obsessive-compulsive detail that Tolkein reached with The Silmarillion.
continui. (plural of continuum?)
It's my (limited) understanding of Latin that when making a word plural:
Thus:
But:
So, I would expect the plural of "continuum" to be "continua".
*Thank you, Futurama
**Thank you, Isaac Asimov
The reason we have laws against monopolies...
*Sigh* It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal for a company that has a monopoly to compete in any manner other than on the merits of their products.
They're *LUCKY* if I enter a valid gender half the time!
Actually, wouldn't getting the gender right half the time be statistically average? I would take lucky to mean it's right most of the time.
Currently, there are four replies to my comment. The substance of my response to each is essentially the same, so I'm just going to post it here once. Oh, and IANAL.
Yes: typically, when you break a law, you get punished. Anti-trust law, though, is different. As many Libertarians will tell you, it isn't "fair" to punish a company just because it was successful enough to achieve market dominance. That, after all, is the goal of any lawful business. This is why the simple fact of having a monopoly isn't a crime. Once you reach such a position of dominance, though, it becomes incredibly easy for you avoid competition on the merits, instead using your position of dominance to keep superior products off the market. This is the situation that anti-trust laws are designed to address. Thus, the goal of any anti-trust remedy is not to punish a company that has a monopoly, but instead to force it to start competing on the merits again.
So, GnomeKing, your analogy is an apt one. I don't understand why the courts do this in matters of anti-trust law, but they do.
And mmynsted: Microsoft probably does see this as just the cost of doing business. Sucks, but it can't be helped.