Meanwhile, in Second Life, they found that the best reactions were when the avatar making the request was a five-foot-five, skimpily clad, anime catgirl with a suggestive name and title using a really "frisky" set of animations and cute misspellings.
That's what science is all about... it's a mechanism for applying a filter to your assumptions and conclusions to increase the probability that what you conclude is actually true.
Since there's no way to test atheism, mind you, it's not a science any more than any other religion.
On the other hand, if ones goals include survival (at whatever level - personal up through planetary), using a brain evolved to increase your chances of survival is probably a good idea. So atheism is probably a more useful religion than most.
Science is a mechanism for filtering superstition out from reality. In fact that's pretty close to a one-sentence summary of what science is for, and what the difference between science and other approaches to understanding the universe are.
What Wolfgang Forstmeier seems to be doing is noticing a tendency for scientists to fail to use the scientific method in situations where they should, and generalizing it to a general case. He's concluding that, since individual scientists may be superstitious, it follows that science is superstition.
This is of course a common superstition about science.
How much do you get from Microsoft for this kind of service these days?
It wasn't Google that screwed the pooch, it was Bloomberg... they passed the message on without even reading it, apparently, let alone verifying it with UAL or the paper.
For some reason ElectricEuphonium's article is scored 0, but there's no moderation log.
I agree. I think the company that stands the most to lose here is Bloomberg. The entire reason people use Bloomberg is to get the most important, relevant financial headlines. This filtering is Bloomberg's entire value-add to the news chain. If they just blindly copy a crawler and don't do any filtering, then why should anyone read their headlines?
Particularly with someone at Bloomberg making the comment that they wouldn't check an article if it came from the Sun-Sentinel. I would expect that they would at least read the article, for goodness sake.
I'll bet some intern at the original newspaper who posted this six-year-old article to the paper's website early on a hangover-laden Monday morning will take the fall for not copy-pasting the dateline.
That didn't happen.
The article wasn't "posted to the paper's website".
When Lively started up almost any search would have several "full" rooms at the top of the results. There were multiple overflow rooms for every possible topic. Now, even on the weekend, there's rarely more than half a dozen people in any of the rooms.
The google provided content has not changed in the past two months.
There have been no API or builder tools released.
It's going to need more than a Doubleshot to make it lively again.
If you look back a bit further, you can see that the stock price has been drifting down for several days and that it's a little above the trend for Sep 5-8. I doubt that this glitch has made any significant difference to the stock price.
How and why would a 5-year old story about bankruptcy suddenly get "voted up" in at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Hurricanes Hanna and Ike making Florida newsworthy, attracting a bunch of people to newspapers like the Florida Sun-Sentinel who weren't familiar with the paper's layout and archives?
My guess there was no editor checking it before the South Florida Sun-Sentinel pushed the publish button.
The FLorida Sun-Sentinel published it in 2002. The date on the page was 2002. It was in their archives. They had a link on their website pointing to popular stories in their archives. Such links change minute by minute.
It's Bloomberg who should have had an editor in the loop.
I wonder who gets sued for this. Obviously Google's Crawler was at fault, somewhat
How do you figure that? It's doing what it's supposed to. The problem wasn't the crawler, it's the people who thought the crawler was some kind of magic AI that could find relevant stories for them.
You can trust individuals, yes, but regardless of the pernicious doctrine of corporate personhood, that's as far as you should go. Corporations are basically required by law to behave in an untrustworthy way, and even if the individual at the helm of the corporation is trustworthy there are limits to how far they can carry their intentions (however good) through.
Technically possible, but practically unlikely, if you think through how power savings are most commonly and effectively achieved. Power saving "features" generally involve software and firmware changes, and the use of smaller, slower, and lower-performing members of a product line (eg, fewer cores, fewer graphics pipelines, lower clock rate,...). Things like flash drives and other (at least for the moment) exotic components tend not to save much power in practice, certainly nowhere near as much as simply using less powerful parts.
This language means if they take a screen shot of Blogger for advertising or other purposes and it happens to include your blog you don't get to sue them over it.
XUL is one reason I've switched from Firefox to Camino on the Mac, and why I wish I had the alternative of a decent Gecko-based browser with native UI on Windows.
I used to think Firefox extensions were great, but once I got to the point that I was turning most of the extensions *off* to make Firefox stable again, I changed my mind.
I've bought digital music from all of these, and they don't seem to be fading away or going out of business.
iTunes and Amazon have the resources of an existing large company behind them.
eMusic ignores the big labels and does business with artists and publishers who are willing to play nice.
Magnatune is an online label.
Oh, and none of them started out with the handicap of previous bad court decisions that set them up for "past infringement" fees. What happened to MP3.com was appalling, particularly since they were conspicuously following the intent of the law while Napster, who were deliberately and notoriously targeting what they saw as a loophole, managed to survive. On the other hand the situation is not quite as bad as Michael makes it out to be.
I see there being three kinds of digital music company.
1. The ones who bend over for the labels and do everything the labels want from the start. These are not likely to attract a lot of customers, because what the labels want is mostly against the customer's best interests. About the only one of these that's managed to keep their head above the water is Rhapsody.
2. The ones who play hardball with the labels. There's two ways of going about this... you can be a big company and use that leverage to get a contract you can live with, or you can try and present them with a fait accompli and use that as leverage to get a contract you can live with. Michael's article is all about how the latter route doesn't work. The former route, of course, is Apple and Amazon.
3. The ones who ignore the labels, and build up a user base of people who want good music and don't care if there's a "star" name on the album. That's Magnatune and eMusic and other small operators.
What "DRM" in games means is what we used to call "copy protection". And players do care about it, when they get a scratched CD, or steam screws up, or anything else that results from them not being able to make a backup of their games whacks them upside the head.
They're just used to it. It's "that sucks, but what can you do about it".
And for game companies, the attitude is generally "it sucks, but what can you do about it" too.
I've been whacked upside the head by copy protection from both sides. As a player, the first pirated game I ever got was a cracked copy of Wizardry that I had the local pirate write over the original Wizardry gold-foil-labelled CD because their copy protection was so broken the game became unplayable (except on one particular computer) after a couple of months. And as an author, the copy protection (required by the publisher) we put on Tracers led to us missing the Christmas release because the first run of disks had to be recalled because the publisher had screwed up the production.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why they even brought SL up, actually, given that the experiments were done in There.COM.
Besides, Google Lively is the new next big thing, haven't you been paying attention? Second Life is soooooo 2006.
Meanwhile, in Second Life, they found that the best reactions were when the avatar making the request was a five-foot-five, skimpily clad, anime catgirl with a suggestive name and title using a really "frisky" set of animations and cute misspellings.
That's what science is all about... it's a mechanism for applying a filter to your assumptions and conclusions to increase the probability that what you conclude is actually true.
Since there's no way to test atheism, mind you, it's not a science any more than any other religion.
On the other hand, if ones goals include survival (at whatever level - personal up through planetary), using a brain evolved to increase your chances of survival is probably a good idea. So atheism is probably a more useful religion than most.
Science is a mechanism for filtering superstition out from reality. In fact that's pretty close to a one-sentence summary of what science is for, and what the difference between science and other approaches to understanding the universe are.
What Wolfgang Forstmeier seems to be doing is noticing a tendency for scientists to fail to use the scientific method in situations where they should, and generalizing it to a general case. He's concluding that, since individual scientists may be superstitious, it follows that science is superstition.
This is of course a common superstition about science.
How much do you get from Microsoft for this kind of service these days?
It wasn't Google that screwed the pooch, it was Bloomberg... they passed the message on without even reading it, apparently, let alone verifying it with UAL or the paper.
If Slashdot is basing karma on single posts that's just broken.
Among other things, the SEC regulations requiring them to maximize their stockholder value over a fairly short term.
For some reason ElectricEuphonium's article is scored 0, but there's no moderation log.
Particularly with someone at Bloomberg making the comment that they wouldn't check an article if it came from the Sun-Sentinel. I would expect that they would at least read the article, for goodness sake.
I'll bet some intern at the original newspaper who posted this six-year-old article to the paper's website early on a hangover-laden Monday morning will take the fall for not copy-pasting the dateline.
That didn't happen.
The article wasn't "posted to the paper's website".
It was in the archived stories section.
they'd have to run in a browser, would be supported by ads, and would steal all your sensitive information.
Like just about all the other popular "flash" games on the net...?
When Lively started up almost any search would have several "full" rooms at the top of the results. There were multiple overflow rooms for every possible topic. Now, even on the weekend, there's rarely more than half a dozen people in any of the rooms.
The google provided content has not changed in the past two months.
There have been no API or builder tools released.
It's going to need more than a Doubleshot to make it lively again.
If you look back a bit further, you can see that the stock price has been drifting down for several days and that it's a little above the trend for Sep 5-8. I doubt that this glitch has made any significant difference to the stock price.
How and why would a 5-year old story about bankruptcy suddenly get "voted up" in at the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Hurricanes Hanna and Ike making Florida newsworthy, attracting a bunch of people to newspapers like the Florida Sun-Sentinel who weren't familiar with the paper's layout and archives?
Wouldn't there have been a date from when the article was written?
There was. The correct date was on the original article.
Sounds to me like someone else may have helped this happen.
The guy who reposted the article without reading it.
My guess there was no editor checking it before the South Florida Sun-Sentinel pushed the publish button.
The FLorida Sun-Sentinel published it in 2002. The date on the page was 2002. It was in their archives. They had a link on their website pointing to popular stories in their archives. Such links change minute by minute.
It's Bloomberg who should have had an editor in the loop.
I wonder who gets sued for this. Obviously Google's Crawler was at fault, somewhat
How do you figure that? It's doing what it's supposed to. The problem wasn't the crawler, it's the people who thought the crawler was some kind of magic AI that could find relevant stories for them.
You can trust individuals, yes, but regardless of the pernicious doctrine of corporate personhood, that's as far as you should go. Corporations are basically required by law to behave in an untrustworthy way, and even if the individual at the helm of the corporation is trustworthy there are limits to how far they can carry their intentions (however good) through.
Technically possible, but practically unlikely, if you think through how power savings are most commonly and effectively achieved. Power saving "features" generally involve software and firmware changes, and the use of smaller, slower, and lower-performing members of a product line (eg, fewer cores, fewer graphics pipelines, lower clock rate, ...). Things like flash drives and other (at least for the moment) exotic components tend not to save much power in practice, certainly nowhere near as much as simply using less powerful parts.
This language means if they take a screen shot of Blogger for advertising or other purposes and it happens to include your blog you don't get to sue them over it.
XUL is one reason I've switched from Firefox to Camino on the Mac, and why I wish I had the alternative of a decent Gecko-based browser with native UI on Windows.
I used to think Firefox extensions were great, but once I got to the point that I was turning most of the extensions *off* to make Firefox stable again, I changed my mind.
I've bought digital music from all of these, and they don't seem to be fading away or going out of business.
iTunes and Amazon have the resources of an existing large company behind them.
eMusic ignores the big labels and does business with artists and publishers who are willing to play nice.
Magnatune is an online label.
Oh, and none of them started out with the handicap of previous bad court decisions that set them up for "past infringement" fees. What happened to MP3.com was appalling, particularly since they were conspicuously following the intent of the law while Napster, who were deliberately and notoriously targeting what they saw as a loophole, managed to survive. On the other hand the situation is not quite as bad as Michael makes it out to be.
I see there being three kinds of digital music company.
1. The ones who bend over for the labels and do everything the labels want from the start. These are not likely to attract a lot of customers, because what the labels want is mostly against the customer's best interests. About the only one of these that's managed to keep their head above the water is Rhapsody.
2. The ones who play hardball with the labels. There's two ways of going about this... you can be a big company and use that leverage to get a contract you can live with, or you can try and present them with a fait accompli and use that as leverage to get a contract you can live with. Michael's article is all about how the latter route doesn't work. The former route, of course, is Apple and Amazon.
3. The ones who ignore the labels, and build up a user base of people who want good music and don't care if there's a "star" name on the album. That's Magnatune and eMusic and other small operators.
If the laptop uses less power, it uses fewer resources over the long run.
There is a difference between "Here is some magic technology the people in my story use" and understanding or making said technology.
And yet people say things like "Arthur C Clarke invented communication satellites" or "Robert Heinlein invented the waterbed" with a straight face.
And of course this fellow's gadget wasn't "the iPod": the iPod wasn't the first digital music player.
It's analogies all the way down.
What "DRM" in games means is what we used to call "copy protection". And players do care about it, when they get a scratched CD, or steam screws up, or anything else that results from them not being able to make a backup of their games whacks them upside the head.
They're just used to it. It's "that sucks, but what can you do about it".
And for game companies, the attitude is generally "it sucks, but what can you do about it" too.
I've been whacked upside the head by copy protection from both sides. As a player, the first pirated game I ever got was a cracked copy of Wizardry that I had the local pirate write over the original Wizardry gold-foil-labelled CD because their copy protection was so broken the game became unplayable (except on one particular computer) after a couple of months. And as an author, the copy protection (required by the publisher) we put on Tracers led to us missing the Christmas release because the first run of disks had to be recalled because the publisher had screwed up the production.
OK, that makes more sense. Thanks.