I believe you drastically over-estimate the reliability and objectivity of traditional encyclopedias. It's astonishing how willing people are to trust anything thats closed and opaque, simply out of the assumption that someone must have said it was okay.
This is a strange argument. Traditional encyclpedias are published in book form, and now also on the web. Historically, respectable encyclopedias documented their sources; has this changed? (Seriously, I'd like to know.)
I am mystified by the suggestion that traditional encyclopedias are "closed and opaque". The information they contain is available to anyone who owns a copy, or has access to a public library. There is no obfuscation of the information encyclopedias contain in a way that one could describe as "opaque".
The model for wikis and traditional encyclopedias is similar, except that in the case of the traditional encyclopedia there are trained writers , reviewers, and editors paid by the publisher, whereas wikipedia depends on the training and editorial reliability of the world at large.
It is certainly possible that the staff of an encyclopedia publisher could have an editorial bias, but the same is true for the editors of different content areas in the wikipedia.
The fact that 80% of your comment is true and you don't even realise it.
Clearly, the poster was perfectly aware there was some truth in his post. That is precisely why the post was humorous.
Or are you saying that we should decide what the people want. Cause that would be kinda scary.
You have uncovered an interesting point here: The difference between closed-source systems, such as MS Windows, and free systems, such as GNU/Linux, is precisely that with closed-source systems, corporations decide what the people want. With free systems, the people not only decide what they want, but also create, modify, and improve what they want. You are quite correct that, to a company such as Microsoft, it is "kinda scary" that we, the people, have the power to decide what we want.
Grandparent post said: And if you try to discipline someone else's child, you run the risk of getting yourself into a physical fight with the parents, or even sued. I don't think so.
Parent post said: Hiting someone else's child is never appropriate. If the child is acting inappropriately and the parent is not around, it is OK to say something reasonable to ask the child to behave.
In my home, to "discipline" my child is not a synonym for to "hit" my child. It is a pity that many parents think as the parent poster does, that discipline, by definition, involves violence.
For goodness sake, the military is as well versed as any institution in the meaning of discipline, but they don't (in the US, at least) beat soldiers in order to enforce discipline.
How about a competently taught highschool English class?
Seriously, people...learn to use the language...you'll be better off.
You must be kidding. That's as ridiculous as suggesting that people could avoid becoming obese by getting regular exercise and eating in moderation. Those views are inherently biased against the people of the southern and rural United States.
Who are you trying to correct? Why would anyone think Microsoft would disagree with the slogan "Do no Evil"?
I mean, apart from the fact that Microsoft is a monopolist convicted of illegally manipulating the market to eliminate competition? (Hey, and what's so evil about that? That's good for everyone; just ask Ayn Rand!)
Clearly, you are attempting to address a misimpression that couldn't possibly exist.
Simple logic, my friend. If IIR says "you are using all our base", it's not the same as if IIR says "All your base are belong to us."
In this case, it is true that the article says: "I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
It is NOT true that IIR is claiming to own "the intellectual property" of Gmail. IIR is only claiming that Google is using IIR's intellectual property, which is not even close to the misleading blanket statement that IIR "claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service", as the summary states. IIR is not making broad claims to the ownership of GMail's intellectual property.
I for one would like to say that being a teenager not so long ago, i did not play games just for "Bragging Rights". I owned at the time, and still own, an original NES which i played then and still play now, simply for the pure enjoyment that the original games offer. Have you played teenage mutant ninja turtles 3? that game still holds it's own at parties, at least among my friends.
Props to you, sir. I suspect that your fundamental premise is correct, and that the people who most strenuously objected to the cel-shading in Wind Waker were those who were trying to prove their own worth via their games "macho" look.
The fact that people are young doesn't make them fools. Foolish people will be fools regardless of age.
Can we arbitrarily construe other Titles of U.S.C. also to only apply to commerce? That would be quite handy! "No really, your honor, I didn't violate the law when I killed that eagle, because Title 16 only applies to commercial use."
This is an obviously rhetorical stupid question that doesn't even attempt to answer the question of Title 35 applying to commercial and/or personal context. Stupid questions of this sort typically appear when one of the following is true:
1) The stupid question accurately represents the mental capicty of the questioner. 2) The questioner lacks the ability to respond meaningfully to the question he is deriding. (Also known as the Mike Tyson "if you can't beat 'em, bite 'em" approach.) 3) The questioner is not interested in, or capable of, civil discourse.
Barring a follow-up reference to some clarifying material, this situation looks like option 2 or 3.
For what it's worth, I'm really interested in actual facts that clarify the issue, not the misguided attempt to prevail in an argument through condescension. Can anyone point to a legal reference that clarifies this commercial/personal use issue (aside from Title 35 itself)?
Don't you think that expanded Unix deal had anything to do with the right to publish OpenSolaris?
No. If it had anything to do with paying for valid license rights regarding UNIX, SCO would have payed Novell 90% of that amount, in accordance with SCO's legal agreement with Novell. Since SCO did not pay that money to Novell, it is clear that SCO, at least, does not believe the payment from Sun has anything to do with UNIX license rights.
Without trying to be offensive to you. As long as this is an accredited school (particularly the department that did this research) and the education these scientists have comes from an accredited school then your statements are nothing more then gibberish, and possibly liable.
Hmmm.... I believe you mean "libel", not "liable", though I am going to take the high road and will not raise questions about what accredited school you attend or attended....
In any case, you are quite correct that, as presented, the statements are gibberish. In order to be credible statements about the mental acuity of the people of northern Ireland (and specifically the faculty of Ulster Univeristy), the poster needs to wrap some dubious statistics around the offending assertions, in the manner of the researchers mentioned in the articles. That will eliminate the lingering doubt in the minds of his current detractors.
How did this get modded Funny? I'd say "Insightful":
I think it is safe to say that one contributing factor to the decline in movie theatre revenues is that there are fewer dates being brought to them
This sounds very likely to me. In my day, before the World-Wide-Web, taking dates to movies was very common, and unlike a previous responder to this, I frequently went to movies with my girlfriend when I was dating. At the time, it was cheap entertainment we both enjoyed. Well, not super cheap, becuase I usually bought ridiculously priced popcorn and soft drinks.
I have opted out of going to the movies several times, because it was a long movie and I didn't want to have to go that long without smoking. What ever happened to intermissions!!! I understand that it would be rude of me to want to smoke in doors, but at least have a heart and give the smokers a little break.
I'm not a smoker, but I wholeheartedly agree with having intermissions for various reasons, including the need to unload the cola I drank during the first half of the film, as well as giving smokers a chance to attend their needs outside the theater.
Just try to see if you can have a computer simulation come up with something on the order of complexity of TCP/IP that works even half as well.
Now realize we are way more complex, and try to argue against a Creator now.
Good grief. As you have described it, this is your argument:
1. There are complex things that I know were designed with the aid of a computer. 2. Living things are also complex. 3. Therefore, living things must have been designed. 4. People are more complex than some living things, so they must have been designed using a really kick-ass computer.
For what it's worth, you are not alone in your beliefs, or your mastery of logic.
It's not that the nonviolent path will bring about actual peace on earth, but rather that it's the right thing to do.
Eep. My previous post in this thread was intended to be satire.... "Force" is the common euphamism for "violence".
The original post that eschews violence is insightful. People are often seduced by the "easy answers" that involve violence, when those are the only answers that result in short-term action. The well-thought out road of negotiation is much harder to sell, simply because it often takes longer than the decision to engage in violence.
Usually, it is those pushing for violence that are the most charismatic, and the easiest to follow. Finding the peaceful route is always the hardest, and usually least popular.
Real peace can be acheived not through "violence", but through proper application of force. However, history shows that peace certainly cannot be achieved through the so-called "harder to follow... peaceful path" you advocate.
In fact, if I were half the man I think I am, I'd take you outside and beat some sense into you. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Game publishers, book publishers, movie companies, tv stations, music labels and so on usually have to pay someone for what they use.
Every buy (or see in a book store or library) a copy of Moby Dick, or perhaps Bleak House? Don Quixote? The Illiad? The Inferno? A William Shakespeare collection? Tom Sawyer? Anyone? No? Well, never mind, then.
As far as a consensus, I'd say that we are left-libertarian.
If that means "Generally, we slashdotters are nice people, but we get a huge kick out of calling our uninformed opinions 'facts'," then I'd say you've pretty well nailed it.
(Not meaning to imply disagreement with your comment, which really seems spot-on, to me.)
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
Not exactly. According to this article at Slate, the issue is that the "pre-emptive bidding" process used to sell the rights within Time Warner allowed New Line to suppress the total amount of money they made on the films. It appears that Peter Jackson contends that they shortchanged him and were able to hide it by using this method of selling the rights.
In response to the comment: "E-mail is mostly untraceable" you said: I believe it is you who is the moron.
Clearly you know something I don't. I am hoping you will enlighten the rest of us about how to identify the people who send email from public-access terminals, zombie PCs, and from domains such as.cn,.kr,.ru, etc.
Actually, after you have explained to us here on slashdot, please inform the attorneys general of the states with anti-spam laws.
Thank you so much for your help in solving this problem!
Yes, but as we also know, the earth is round, like a Frisbee(R). So, as with any disc, it is perfectly possible to find the center of the earth by simply finding the midpoint of its diameter. Obviously that is where they plan to drill.
You realize... there are people on this planet who don't believe that birds are evolved from dinosaurs. Showing that both have a similar method for egg production goes a long way in proving this relationship.
Ahem.... The vast majority of folks who don't believe birds evolved from dinosaurs are NOT going to be convinced by a bunch of scientist saying "See? They had similar methods for egg production."
In the unlikely event that those folks might possibly be convinced of any such thing, you would first need to tackle the more fundamental issue of convincing them that the world was not created just a few thousand years ago.
If you look carfully during the "touching scene" between Anakin and Padme, you'll see the wet paper bag that Hayden Christensen was unable to act his way out of.
BitTorrent search however proves with first tests [that it is] as...Google...fast. The results come from a large number [of] more well-known and unknown... sites, and...permits sufficient restricting to the inquiry, in order to obtain really relevant results.
Well, sure, the editing was done by starrsoft, who submitted the article, but I just about had a heart attack when I saw a slashdot article that had been edited to make it more comprehensible.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you drastically over-estimate the reliability and objectivity of traditional encyclopedias. It's astonishing how willing people are to trust anything thats closed and opaque, simply out of the assumption that someone must have said it was okay.
This is a strange argument. Traditional encyclpedias are published in book form, and now also on the web. Historically, respectable encyclopedias documented their sources; has this changed? (Seriously, I'd like to know.)
I am mystified by the suggestion that traditional encyclopedias are "closed and opaque". The information they contain is available to anyone who owns a copy, or has access to a public library. There is no obfuscation of the information encyclopedias contain in a way that one could describe as "opaque".
The model for wikis and traditional encyclopedias is similar, except that in the case of the traditional encyclopedia there are trained writers , reviewers, and editors paid by the publisher, whereas wikipedia depends on the training and editorial reliability of the world at large.
It is certainly possible that the staff of an encyclopedia publisher could have an editorial bias, but the same is true for the editors of different content areas in the wikipedia.
The fact that 80% of your comment is true and you don't even realise it.
Clearly, the poster was perfectly aware there was some truth in his post. That is precisely why the post was humorous.
Or are you saying that we should decide what the people want. Cause that would be kinda scary.
You have uncovered an interesting point here: The difference between closed-source systems, such as MS Windows, and free systems, such as GNU/Linux, is precisely that with closed-source systems, corporations decide what the people want. With free systems, the people not only decide what they want, but also create, modify, and improve what they want. You are quite correct that, to a company such as Microsoft, it is "kinda scary" that we, the people, have the power to decide what we want.
Finally putting the two largest scum of the earth together!!
SCO's involved in this?
Well, while I sympathize with the implication that SCO is scum of the earth, SCO is not large.
Grandparent post said:
And if you try to discipline someone else's child, you run the risk of getting yourself into a physical fight with the parents, or even sued. I don't think so.
Parent post said:
Hiting someone else's child is never appropriate. If the child is acting inappropriately and the parent is not around, it is OK to say something reasonable to ask the child to behave.
In my home, to "discipline" my child is not a synonym for to "hit" my child. It is a pity that many parents think as the parent poster does, that discipline, by definition, involves violence.
For goodness sake, the military is as well versed as any institution in the meaning of discipline, but they don't (in the US, at least) beat soldiers in order to enforce discipline.
How about a competently taught highschool English class?
Seriously, people...learn to use the language...you'll be better off.
You must be kidding. That's as ridiculous as suggesting that people could avoid becoming obese by getting regular exercise and eating in moderation. Those views are inherently biased against the people of the southern and rural United States.
He was not referring to the "Do no Evil"
Who are you trying to correct? Why would anyone think Microsoft would disagree with the slogan "Do no Evil"?
I mean, apart from the fact that Microsoft is a monopolist convicted of illegally manipulating the market to eliminate competition? (Hey, and what's so evil about that? That's good for everyone; just ask Ayn Rand!)
Clearly, you are attempting to address a misimpression that couldn't possibly exist.
Simple logic, my friend. If IIR says "you are using all our base", it's not the same as if IIR says "All your base are belong to us."
In this case, it is true that the article says:
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
It is NOT true that IIR is claiming to own "the intellectual property" of Gmail. IIR is only claiming that Google is using IIR's intellectual property, which is not even close to the misleading blanket statement that IIR "claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service", as the summary states. IIR is not making broad claims to the ownership of GMail's intellectual property.
I for one would like to say that being a teenager not so long ago, i did not play games just for "Bragging Rights". I owned at the time, and still own, an original NES which i played then and still play now, simply for the pure enjoyment that the original games offer. Have you played teenage mutant ninja turtles 3? that game still holds it's own at parties, at least among my friends.
Props to you, sir. I suspect that your fundamental premise is correct, and that the people who most strenuously objected to the cel-shading in Wind Waker were those who were trying to prove their own worth via their games "macho" look.
The fact that people are young doesn't make them fools. Foolish people will be fools regardless of age.
Can we arbitrarily construe other Titles of U.S.C. also to only apply to commerce? That would be quite handy! "No really, your honor, I didn't violate the law when I killed that eagle, because Title 16 only applies to commercial use."
This is an obviously rhetorical stupid question that doesn't even attempt to answer the question of Title 35 applying to commercial and/or personal context. Stupid questions of this sort typically appear when one of the following is true:
1) The stupid question accurately represents the mental capicty of the questioner.
2) The questioner lacks the ability to respond meaningfully to the question he is deriding. (Also known as the Mike Tyson "if you can't beat 'em, bite 'em" approach.)
3) The questioner is not interested in, or capable of, civil discourse.
Barring a follow-up reference to some clarifying material, this situation looks like option 2 or 3.
For what it's worth, I'm really interested in actual facts that clarify the issue, not the misguided attempt to prevail in an argument through condescension. Can anyone point to a legal reference that clarifies this commercial/personal use issue (aside from Title 35 itself)?
Don't you think that expanded Unix deal had anything to do with the right to publish OpenSolaris?
No. If it had anything to do with paying for valid license rights regarding UNIX, SCO would have payed Novell 90% of that amount, in accordance with SCO's legal agreement with Novell. Since SCO did not pay that money to Novell, it is clear that SCO, at least, does not believe the payment from Sun has anything to do with UNIX license rights.
Without trying to be offensive to you. As long as this is an accredited school (particularly the department that did this research) and the education these scientists have comes from an accredited school then your statements are nothing more then gibberish, and possibly liable.
Hmmm.... I believe you mean "libel", not "liable", though I am going to take the high road and will not raise questions about what accredited school you attend or attended....
In any case, you are quite correct that, as presented, the statements are gibberish. In order to be credible statements about the mental acuity of the people of northern Ireland (and specifically the faculty of Ulster Univeristy), the poster needs to wrap some dubious statistics around the offending assertions, in the manner of the researchers mentioned in the articles. That will eliminate the lingering doubt in the minds of his current detractors.
How did this get modded Funny? I'd say "Insightful":
I think it is safe to say that one contributing factor to the decline in movie theatre revenues is that there are fewer dates being brought to them
This sounds very likely to me. In my day, before the World-Wide-Web, taking dates to movies was very common, and unlike a previous responder to this, I frequently went to movies with my girlfriend when I was dating. At the time, it was cheap entertainment we both enjoyed. Well, not super cheap, becuase I usually bought ridiculously priced popcorn and soft drinks.
I have opted out of going to the movies several times, because it was a long movie and I didn't want to have to go that long without smoking. What ever happened to intermissions!!! I understand that it would be rude of me to want to smoke in doors, but at least have a heart and give the smokers a little break.
I'm not a smoker, but I wholeheartedly agree with having intermissions for various reasons, including the need to unload the cola I drank during the first half of the film, as well as giving smokers a chance to attend their needs outside the theater.
Just try to see if you can have a computer simulation come up with something on the order of complexity of TCP/IP that works even half as well.
Now realize we are way more complex, and try to argue against a Creator now.
Good grief. As you have described it, this is your argument:
1. There are complex things that I know were designed with the aid of a computer.
2. Living things are also complex.
3. Therefore, living things must have been designed.
4. People are more complex than some living things, so they must have been designed using a really kick-ass computer.
For what it's worth, you are not alone in your beliefs, or your mastery of logic.
It's not that the nonviolent path will bring about actual peace on earth, but rather that it's the right thing to do.
Eep. My previous post in this thread was intended to be satire.... "Force" is the common euphamism for "violence".
The original post that eschews violence is insightful. People are often seduced by the "easy answers" that involve violence, when those are the only answers that result in short-term action. The well-thought out road of negotiation is much harder to sell, simply because it often takes longer than the decision to engage in violence.
Usually, it is those pushing for violence that are the most charismatic, and the easiest to follow. Finding the peaceful route is always the hardest, and usually least popular.
Real peace can be acheived not through "violence", but through proper application of force. However, history shows that peace certainly cannot be achieved through the so-called "harder to follow... peaceful path" you advocate.
In fact, if I were half the man I think I am, I'd take you outside and beat some sense into you. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Game publishers, book publishers, movie companies, tv stations, music labels and so on usually have to pay someone for what they use.
Every buy (or see in a book store or library) a copy of Moby Dick, or perhaps Bleak House? Don Quixote? The Illiad? The Inferno? A William Shakespeare collection? Tom Sawyer? Anyone? No? Well, never mind, then.
As far as a consensus, I'd say that we are left-libertarian.
If that means "Generally, we slashdotters are nice people, but we get a huge kick out of calling our uninformed opinions 'facts'," then I'd say you've pretty well nailed it.
(Not meaning to imply disagreement with your comment, which really seems spot-on, to me.)
I don't know how we'll manage.
You needn't worry about that. Literate managers who speak fluent Chinese will be provided for the members of your generation.
The article seems to be saying that New Line sold off merchandising rights to companies within the Time Warner family rather than sell to the highest bidder.
The suit contends that NL made more money, and therefore PJ would have recieved a higher cut, if the merchandising rights were sold on the open market.
Not exactly. According to this article at Slate, the issue is that the "pre-emptive bidding" process used to sell the rights within Time Warner allowed New Line to suppress the total amount of money they made on the films. It appears that Peter Jackson contends that they shortchanged him and were able to hide it by using this method of selling the rights.
In response to the comment:
.cn, .kr, .ru, etc.
"E-mail is mostly untraceable"
you said:
I believe it is you who is the moron.
Clearly you know something I don't. I am hoping you will enlighten the rest of us about how to identify the people who send email from public-access terminals, zombie PCs, and from domains such as
Actually, after you have explained to us here on slashdot, please inform the attorneys general of the states with anti-spam laws.
Thank you so much for your help in solving this problem!
if aliens find the ruins of earth millions of years from now, they would dig up our laptops and imagine that we had 104 fingers.
...
I've been using the MX500 mouse for over three years now. The awesome thing about it is how well positioned its 8 buttons are.
Stupid alien 1: Hey, look at this keyboard! These humans must have had 104 fingers!
Stupid alien 2: Yeah, except for this 8-fingered mutant. I wonder how this freak was able to use the 104-key keyboard that was next to his mouse?
I agree 100%, the earth is flat.
Yes, but as we also know, the earth is round, like a Frisbee(R). So, as with any disc, it is perfectly possible to find the center of the earth by simply finding the midpoint of its diameter. Obviously that is where they plan to drill.
You realize... there are people on this planet who don't believe that birds are evolved from dinosaurs. Showing that both have a similar method for egg production goes a long way in proving this relationship.
Ahem.... The vast majority of folks who don't believe birds evolved from dinosaurs are NOT going to be convinced by a bunch of scientist saying "See? They had similar methods for egg production."
In the unlikely event that those folks might possibly be convinced of any such thing, you would first need to tackle the more fundamental issue of convincing them that the world was not created just a few thousand years ago.
If you look carfully during the "touching scene" between Anakin and Padme, you'll see the wet paper bag that Hayden Christensen was unable to act his way out of.
BitTorrent search however proves with first tests [that it is] as...Google...fast. The results come from a large number [of] more well-known and unknown... sites, and...permits sufficient restricting to the inquiry, in order to obtain really relevant results.
Well, sure, the editing was done by starrsoft, who submitted the article, but I just about had a heart attack when I saw a slashdot article that had been edited to make it more comprehensible.