Of course, one big problem is that the scientific method is usually taught incorrectly.
...which causes people to make unsupported assertions, and then speak in anecdotes and generalities...
People frame it as if the scientific method explained everything about how actual scientists do actual science; there's this weird image that scientists just mechanically follow a set of steps, and science results.
Soooo, you want your TV shows to be totally and 100% factually accurate? Because most cops sit around in their patrol cars waiting for people to speed by so they can give them tickets. Would that pass muster for all of you Slashdot "it's gotta be accurate" assholes?
For a Canadian, you sure are uptight. I didn't think it needed explaining, but it seems the OP was also trying to be funny by assuming you were, in fact, a wombat.
That's probably the single most asinine statement I've ever heard. Are you claiming a computer with no printer has no utility other than lighting a room? Do you print every single thing that appears on your screen? Should blind persons have printers? Your cell phone is a computer, yet has no printer - is it just a super-fancy alarm clock?
Re:Spending a paragraph being a grammar nazi ...
on
Drupal 5 Themes
·
· Score: 1
Speaking of technical editing, why is it so common to see crap like yourdomain in books?
How common is it? Do you have data?
It just reminds me of the stupid novel and film writers that title their works with domain names already in use by others. It's just not necessary.
Oh, I dunno. "Example.com" just doesn't have the same dark overtones that "Fear.com" does.
Wow - all that science and research done by an actual food chemist proven wrong by a single ridiculous assertion by Slashdot's most famous member, Anonymous Coward!
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
Ah, no, don't know him, but he sounds like a sensible dude if he uses that set up.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 1
Did you mean Angus? He usually plays an SG through a Marshall.
Re:We need this type of thing done in the classroo
on
Hand-Made Vacuum Tubes
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A tube amp driven to distortion compresses the waveform rather than hard clipping. This results in a waveform rich in harmonic overtones - the classic distorted guitar sound.
Especially when it's one of these played through one of these.
It just goes to show that, yet again, attempting to regulate the free market just doesn't work.
That's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying every crime committed is further proof that laws just don't work. Citing an example of someone not following the rules as proof that the rules themselves are flawed is just specious. If you stopped chanting the conservative party line for a minute, you'd realize you benefit more from regulations on free markets than you think. Your food is required to meet certain standards of safety, your children aren't allowed to work in sweatshops, and in fact, you aren't allowed to have sweatshops, your place of work is required to meet a threshold of safety, your automobile is required to meet a certain threshold of safety, etc. Free markets can only regulate themselves if everyone always acts in perfect enlightened self-interest and if all actions have zero consequences. This is where your Ayn Rand and reality sharply diverge.
Some friends of mine had a music download server setup for a couple of years, with non-RIAA music from local musicians, about 30GB of them. When we queried Fahnhoffer about using the mp3 format, it was $25,000 per song, payable to the encoder vendor. Seeing as how this was all 'amature(sp) night' work although quite a bit of it was pretty well done, we squawked and got it down to $2,500/song. That obviously was not an amenable amount, so it all got put up in ogg format. They would not entertain a "per song downloaded" royalty which we might have been able to tolerate. And they wanted that per song encoded fee regardless of whose encoder we actually used.
If you took the time to visit the mp3 licensing page that I linked to, you'd see that you don't license from Fraunhofer directly, but rather from Thomson, who is the licensing representative of Fraunhofer and two other companies. You'd also see that they do not charge a licensing fee for non-revenue generating downloads and streaming, and when they do charge a license, it is assessed at 2% of your related revenue, with a minimum of $2,000 (US) per year. Perhaps this Fahnhoffer company you were dealing with was simply a scam artist using a name similar to that of the Fraunhofer Institute?
Xiph, in case you aren't aware, is the ogg developer. If they have any "IP" in either ogg or theora that they would like license fees from others who use it, and would then come back on the user for damages, then they are no better than Fahnhoffer.
I am aware - that's why I mentioned them. But how does your moral objection to them retroactively charging licensing fees prove they don't own patents?
And to your earlier point about Fraunhofer's claims. They have claimed Xiph is most likely infringing on Fraunhofer patents, but who are they going to sue? A non-profit that gives away it's software for free? They probably made such a claim to keep any major media player makers from including Ogg Vorbis in their products and to keep mp3 the dominant format. Plus, you never know how a court will rule in a patent case, and it is very possible that were it to come to the courts, Xiph could be found to be infringing on Fraunhofer's patents. "Yours produces compressed audio? Theirs produces compressed audio? Sounds quite a bit the same to me. I find for the plaintiff."
The ogg folks sent them the source so they could see for themselves if anything patented was being used, and told them to put up or shut up. Fahnhoffer shut up. I think that says it all.
Whether this is true or not, all it says is the Ogg Vorbis format doesn't use any code patented by Fraunhofer. Xiph could still hold their own patents on the Ogg Vorbis format.
What I fail to understand is that since ogg is the audibly superior method, and its free, whyinhell are the record companies even thinking of using mp3 with its 5 and 6 digit per song licensing fees? The total lack of anything resembling good business sense in the RIAA/MPAA world boggles the mind.
Probably because every media player, both hardware and software, can play mp3s. Only a handful can play Ogg Vorbis, and more importantly, the two most popular ones (WMP and iTunes/iPod) can't. And, mp3 licensing fees are significantly lower than you claim, and they are levied against codecs, software, streams, etc., not against songs.
In Philly (well, anywhere PECO services), you can buy power from any number of generating companies, buy you still need to pay PECO delivery charges, as it travels over their lines. Which makes sense, else you'd have power lines from a hundred different companies running through your neighborhood, which more or less used to be the case. In the early days, you had dozens of power companies supplying different electrical needs, using different equipment and voltages and whatnot. The same was true for early phone companies, but it was even worse. So regulation and the formation of a natural monopoly made sense in order to ensure efficient and widespread delivery of power.
I've never seen a home that had heat delivered from a remote provider. Generally, you install some sort of local device that converts some material into heat energy. Most popularly this is either oil or natural gas. Gas delivery is probably a natural monopoly in most places, for the same reason electricity is, but oil is delivered by trucks from any one of dozens of such companies in my area. You are free to choose any one, based on price, which keep the competitive. You could, if you so desired, also create your own heating device that runs off the power of human flatulence or insects moving through its chambers, though I doubt you'd generate sufficient amounts of heat for even a small room. Even with a high-fiber diet.
I think my point is that the only efficient way to ensure universal access to certain utilities is to allow one company have a monopoly on, at a minimum, delivery of said utility. However, television (can TV really be called a utility?) shows can be delivered as efficiently over satellite, cable, fiber or probably even wifi or copper pairs with some of the newer breakthroughs in networking. Of course, I'm getting off point, as the regulations aren't exactly about this issue, but fuck it - it's nearly 4am!
I am having difficulty seeing how the FCC can advocate for the end (or at least modifications) to this monopoly, while allowing heating, water, and electric utility companies to maintain theirs. Is there a differentiation that I am missing?
The primary differentiation is that none of those utilities are communication services, and fall out of the purview of the FCC. Besides, around here (Philadelphia), you can buy electricity and "heat" (in the form of oil, electricity or whatever your heating system converts to heat) from whomever you want. You also have the option of changing the heating system you use if you don't like the providers of that form of energy. Water is supplied by the municipality, which is probably an advantage. I'd hate to have to pay premium for "advanced water services," like basic filtering and sterilization.
Slashdot Mirror
...which causes people to make unsupported assertions, and then speak in anecdotes and generalities...
:>)
Soooo, you want your TV shows to be totally and 100% factually accurate? Because most cops sit around in their patrol cars waiting for people to speed by so they can give them tickets. Would that pass muster for all of you Slashdot "it's gotta be accurate" assholes?
Then how do you know he was speaking French?
For a Canadian, you sure are uptight. I didn't think it needed explaining, but it seems the OP was also trying to be funny by assuming you were, in fact, a wombat.
I think he was talking about you, based on your screen name. Wombats are Australian. Australia was a penal colony. Etc...
That's probably the single most asinine statement I've ever heard. Are you claiming a computer with no printer has no utility other than lighting a room? Do you print every single thing that appears on your screen? Should blind persons have printers? Your cell phone is a computer, yet has no printer - is it just a super-fancy alarm clock?
How common is it? Do you have data?
Oh, I dunno. "Example.com" just doesn't have the same dark overtones that "Fear.com" does.
What, people who aren't afraid of change?
Wow - all that science and research done by an actual food chemist proven wrong by a single ridiculous assertion by Slashdot's most famous member, Anonymous Coward!
Ah, no, don't know him, but he sounds like a sensible dude if he uses that set up.
Did you mean Angus? He usually plays an SG through a Marshall.
Isn't that pretty much what a CPU already does?
Especially when it's one of these played through one of these.
That's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying every crime committed is further proof that laws just don't work. Citing an example of someone not following the rules as proof that the rules themselves are flawed is just specious. If you stopped chanting the conservative party line for a minute, you'd realize you benefit more from regulations on free markets than you think. Your food is required to meet certain standards of safety, your children aren't allowed to work in sweatshops, and in fact, you aren't allowed to have sweatshops, your place of work is required to meet a threshold of safety, your automobile is required to meet a certain threshold of safety, etc. Free markets can only regulate themselves if everyone always acts in perfect enlightened self-interest and if all actions have zero consequences. This is where your Ayn Rand and reality sharply diverge.
Obviously he is, else he wouldn't be so disturbed by it.
If you took the time to visit the mp3 licensing page that I linked to, you'd see that you don't license from Fraunhofer directly, but rather from Thomson, who is the licensing representative of Fraunhofer and two other companies. You'd also see that they do not charge a licensing fee for non-revenue generating downloads and streaming, and when they do charge a license, it is assessed at 2% of your related revenue, with a minimum of $2,000 (US) per year. Perhaps this Fahnhoffer company you were dealing with was simply a scam artist using a name similar to that of the Fraunhofer Institute?
I am aware - that's why I mentioned them. But how does your moral objection to them retroactively charging licensing fees prove they don't own patents?
And to your earlier point about Fraunhofer's claims. They have claimed Xiph is most likely infringing on Fraunhofer patents, but who are they going to sue? A non-profit that gives away it's software for free? They probably made such a claim to keep any major media player makers from including Ogg Vorbis in their products and to keep mp3 the dominant format. Plus, you never know how a court will rule in a patent case, and it is very possible that were it to come to the courts, Xiph could be found to be infringing on Fraunhofer's patents. "Yours produces compressed audio? Theirs produces compressed audio? Sounds quite a bit the same to me. I find for the plaintiff."
Whether this is true or not, all it says is the Ogg Vorbis format doesn't use any code patented by Fraunhofer. Xiph could still hold their own patents on the Ogg Vorbis format.
Probably because every media player, both hardware and software, can play mp3s. Only a handful can play Ogg Vorbis, and more importantly, the two most popular ones (WMP and iTunes/iPod) can't. And, mp3 licensing fees are significantly lower than you claim, and they are levied against codecs, software, streams, etc., not against songs.
I think your humor subsystem needs to be rebooted.
More directly, without Philo T. Farnsworth there'd be nothing to watch the $uper Bowl on.
Good to see Wikipedia hold up under the mad scramble of 10,000 Slashdotters racing to be the first to update that entry to reflect today's event.
Maybe you could start by submitting patches to fix outstanding bugs or add new and useful features?
You think it's an odd belief that finite resources will one day be exhausted?
Unless they're married.
In Philly (well, anywhere PECO services), you can buy power from any number of generating companies, buy you still need to pay PECO delivery charges, as it travels over their lines. Which makes sense, else you'd have power lines from a hundred different companies running through your neighborhood, which more or less used to be the case. In the early days, you had dozens of power companies supplying different electrical needs, using different equipment and voltages and whatnot. The same was true for early phone companies, but it was even worse. So regulation and the formation of a natural monopoly made sense in order to ensure efficient and widespread delivery of power.
I've never seen a home that had heat delivered from a remote provider. Generally, you install some sort of local device that converts some material into heat energy. Most popularly this is either oil or natural gas. Gas delivery is probably a natural monopoly in most places, for the same reason electricity is, but oil is delivered by trucks from any one of dozens of such companies in my area. You are free to choose any one, based on price, which keep the competitive. You could, if you so desired, also create your own heating device that runs off the power of human flatulence or insects moving through its chambers, though I doubt you'd generate sufficient amounts of heat for even a small room. Even with a high-fiber diet.
I think my point is that the only efficient way to ensure universal access to certain utilities is to allow one company have a monopoly on, at a minimum, delivery of said utility. However, television (can TV really be called a utility?) shows can be delivered as efficiently over satellite, cable, fiber or probably even wifi or copper pairs with some of the newer breakthroughs in networking. Of course, I'm getting off point, as the regulations aren't exactly about this issue, but fuck it - it's nearly 4am!
The primary differentiation is that none of those utilities are communication services, and fall out of the purview of the FCC. Besides, around here (Philadelphia), you can buy electricity and "heat" (in the form of oil, electricity or whatever your heating system converts to heat) from whomever you want. You also have the option of changing the heating system you use if you don't like the providers of that form of energy. Water is supplied by the municipality, which is probably an advantage. I'd hate to have to pay premium for "advanced water services," like basic filtering and sterilization.